DEATH OF A MEMBER

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to report to the House the death of Mr. Jim Marshall, Member for Leicester, South. I am sure that Members on all sides of the House will join me in mourning the loss of a colleague and in extending our sympathy to the hon. Member's family and friends.

Oral Answers to Questions

WORK AND PENSIONS

The Secretary of State was asked—

Benefits

Teddy Taylor: How many people were registered as recipients of either disability, incapacity or sickness benefits (a) on the most recent date for which figures are available, (b) in 1999 and (c) in 1994.

Andrew Smith: In 1979 there were 690,000 people of working age claiming incapacity benefits. By 1994 there were 2.23 million and by 1997, 2.56 million. In 2003 there were 2.68 million. I have placed information on all the benefits about which the hon. Member asks in the Library.
	The numbers of people coming on to incapacity benefits are down by more than a quarter in the past seven years, but we still need to do more, which is why we started the pathways to work pilots. I am pleased to note that the hon. Gentleman's own constituency is included in this innovative approach.

Teddy Taylor: The Department's statistics, confirmed by the Library, show that, over the last five years, there has been an increase of 531,000 in the number of people securing disability living allowance or incapacity benefit. As that figure involves a 20 per cent. increase in DLA, does the Secretary of State feel that there is a case for an inquiry to find out why there has been such a huge increase, particularly as there can be implications for other statistics? When we see such a huge increase, it is important to find out why it has happened. I should greatly appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's help in establishing exactly why there has been an increase of 531,000 in this short period.

Andrew Smith: The on-flows on to incapacity benefit are down sharply over the last seven years, by some 260,000 a year. The hon. Gentleman should draw a distinction between incapacity benefit and DLA, which is non-means-tested and paid to people in work, as well as to those out of work, to meet the extra costs of their disability. I would have thought that he would join me in celebrating the fact that people who need that help because they are disabled are receiving it. Sometimes the Conservative party is quick to criticise us for the lower take-up of benefits. Perhaps, on this occasion, the hon. Gentleman will think again about criticising us for the higher take-up of a much needed benefit.

Chris Bryant: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will know that one third of my constituents of working age are on incapacity benefit, a phenomenally high figure. Does he believe that the role of GPs in, effectively, giving people a passport to benefits for life is in serious need of review?

Andrew Smith: We are reviewing these matters and learning from the pathways to work pilots, which also operate in my hon. Friend's constituency. We have established much closer partnership working with GPs, primary care trusts and those involved in training and voluntary service support for sick and disabled people. The early evidence from the pilots is that a lot of people are being helped into training and work rather than incapacity benefit, including in my hon. Friend's constituency.

Archy Kirkwood: The emphasis from the Government on pathways to work and on the pilots is welcome, but will the Secretary of State acknowledge the regional dimension? Is he aware of the recent work by Steve Fothergill—an academic at Sheffield university—and others, which shows clearly that if the economies were stronger in south Wales, the north-east and Clydeside, up to 1.2   million claimants could be taken off incapacity benefit? What are the Government doing to address the regional dimension of the problem, in addition to the individual attention that, rightly, is being given to people in the pathways to work pilots?

Andrew Smith: I am aware not only of regional disparities but of the progress that is being made in the different regions. When one looks at the labour market statistics as a whole over the past seven years—during which we have put 1.9 million extra people into jobs—it is striking that unemployment has fallen furthest in the areas where it was highest. That does not mean that there is not more to do, and through the pathways to work pilots—which are in some of the very areas to which the hon. Gentleman referred—we will be making inroads into what has become a culture of incapacity in those areas. That must change, and I believe positively that it will.

Stephen McCabe: I hope that we have not spotted another Tory leak—about plans to take benefits away from the legitimately ill. Surely the test here is what would have happened in the past to people with such difficulties and how many of them now are being helped by programmes such as the new deal to get back into work when they are capable of it.

Andrew Smith: My hon. Friend makes a good point. People were left to languish on incapacity and other benefits for years, with no one paying them any attention or giving them any help whatever. What Conservative Members leave out of their analysis of the new deal is the number of people suffering ill health and disability—barriers to work—who have been helped by the other new deals. Some 57,000 disabled people have been helped by the new deal for young people, and 41,000 disabled people over the age of 25 have been helped by that new deal. A further 33,000 people have been helped by the new deal 50-plus and 9,000 by the new deal for lone parents. All those are programmes that would be scrapped by the Conservative party.

Paul Goodman: Further to the Secretary of State's remark about a culture of incapacity benefit, he will be aware, although he did not give these figures to the House, that since 1997 the number of people claiming incapacity benefit for such conditions as stress, anxiety and depression has risen to 718,000, that that is a rise of 39 per cent. and that such conditions now represent 26 per cent. of all claims. That rise is continuing, and it is clearly out of control. Can the Minister guarantee that it will be reduced by the end of this Parliament, or is his Department too stressed and anxious to do that?

Andrew Smith: There are a number of reasons underlying the increase in sickness and ill health—and, in particular, mental ill health—take-up of incapacity benefit. Greater awareness and an increase in people's readiness to acknowledge mental health conditions are certainly part of the picture, but if the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that it would be wise to examine the gateway through which people get on to those benefits, and offer them support to enable them to get back into work rather than have a life on benefits, I agree with him. I hope that he agrees with us that the pathways to work approach, which combines rehabilitation, mandatory work-focused interviews, and incentives and help with training for those who move into jobs, is the right way forward. It is cutting-edge stuff as far as international experience is concerned, and the Conservative party ought to support it.

Pension Credit

Lawrie Quinn: How many pensioners he estimates have gained financially as a result of the introduction of pension credit.

Albert Owen: How many pensioners he estimates have gained as a result of pension credit.

Tony Baldry: What discussions he has had with Age Concern relating to the take-up of pension credit.

Jim Knight: How many pensioners he estimates have gained financially as a result of the introduction of pension credit.

Malcolm Wicks: We have today published the latest report on the take-up of pension credit. Over 1.8 million households—that includes over 2.2 million individuals—are now receiving more money than they would have done under the old minimum income guarantee system. In addition, following the introduction of pension credit, around 2 million pensioner households now qualify for extra help with housing benefit or council tax.
	Our Pension Service works closely with Age Concern at both national and local levels.

Lawrie Quinn: I thank my hon. Friend for that excellent answer. In my constituency, many pensioners are now benefiting from that additional help—considerably so, in fact. However, there are still some pensioners who would argue that they are not getting their full entitlement because of their struggle in filling out the paperwork and so on. What can the Minister do to increase the number of pensioners in my constituency and elsewhere who fully understand what they are entitled to and should be receiving?

Malcolm Wicks: I thank my hon. Friend for the lead that he is giving on pensions rights in Scarborough and Whitby. He has a firm reputation in that regard. More than 5,000 households in his constituency are receiving pension credit, the great majority of them—more than 4,000—being financial gainers. But do we need to do more to increase take-up? Yes we do, and I am particularly pleased to report to the House that somewhere in the region of 500,000 home visits have now taken place through our new Pension Service. It is by that exercise of choice over how to apply for benefits that we will push up the numbers even further.

Albert Owen: I thank the Minister for his earlier response. Many people in my constituency are indeed benefiting from the pension credit, but like my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Lawrie Quinn), I have many constituents who are not. Does the Minister agree that Members of Parliament can play an important role in raising awareness of the pension credit? Will he instruct his Department to dispatch information to individual Members across the House so that we can help our vulnerable constituents by raising awareness and making sure that they receive their full entitlement?

Malcolm Wicks: Again, I thank my hon. Friend for the lead that he is giving on these matters on the island. The local pension service has been in touch with all Members of Parliament, but I will review the arrangements to ensure that that is taking place. There are 2,730 people who are on the credit, financially better off, in his constituency, and I know that there are many advice surgeries, one of which, I note, takes place in the marriage waiting room at the registry office—I did not know that we were into that form of joined-up government, but no doubt it will be welcomed.

Tony Baldry: I understand that about £1 billion goes unclaimed in pension credit. Oxfordshire Age Concern, which covers both the Secretary of State's constituency and mine, tells me that much of its work is now in helping pensioners to claim the credit and fill in the paperwork. Will the Minister consider further ways of helping pensioners to access the benefits to which they are entitled? Age Concern and other charities have been very good at reaching pensioners whom even home visits have not reached, so will he consider giving them a grant-in-aid, so that they can be more active in ensuring that pensioners get all the benefits to which they are entitled?

Malcolm Wicks: Again, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work with the local pension service. I know that Age Concern is an active constituent, as it were, in that area. We have a small partnership fund, a sum set aside for the very purpose that he suggested, to ensure that local voluntary organisations can work with us on common objectives, but I thank him for the suggestion.

Jim Knight: Pension credit is certainly benefiting many pensioners in my constituency, too, and I congratulate the Government on that, but there are many who believe that if they have any extra income on top of their basic state pension, that makes them automatically ineligible. Can the Government do more to change that perception?

Malcolm Wicks: That is an important question, and I am not complacent about our need to communicate very effectively. We are doing so, but there is still much to do. The point of pension credit, in large part, is that for the first time, unlike the old minimum income guarantee, it recognises and rewards those with savings, which is one reason why far more people are now benefiting than under the old income support system.

Alistair Burt: Is not the Minister a touch embarrassed to know that, in my constituency, there are many more pensioners who, thanks to his Government's policies, feel fleeced by unnecessarily high council tax bills than are eligible for pension credit?

Malcolm Wicks: I hesitated because I was waiting for the punch line, Mr. Speaker. I hoped for more from a former social security Minister. We are concerned about levels of council tax in many areas, which is why we are reviewing the best methods of funding local governance, and it is one reason why an extra £100 will go to all households with someone aged 70 or over—indeed, we have Report and Third Reading of that Bill tomorrow.

Peter Pike: My hon. Friend will know that I am a strong supporter of pension credit and of what the Government have done for pensioners. Will he acknowledge that the pension centres have done a really good job in ensuring that people who would not have got the benefit are getting it, and recognise that there are concerns about what will happen to those centres? In particular, there are rumours that Simonstone pension centre will close in a major reorganisation, and fears about what will happen and how we will ensure that pensioners get what the Government want them to get in the future.

Malcolm Wicks: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for recognising the important work that pension centres and the service as a whole are doing. Despite the inevitable scare stories that we get from time to time from Opposition parties, the fact that, for example, 94   per cent. of calls are answered within 30 seconds shows what an excellent service we now have.

David Willetts: Does not the Minister recognise the widespread concern that has just been expressed by hon. Members of all parties about the problem of low take-up of pension credit because many pensioners simply do not want to claim a complicated, means-tested benefit? Did he have the good fortune to hear the Deputy Prime Minister on the "Today" programme the other week, when he said that 1.5   million pensioners were not claiming council tax benefit
	"because they don't like to use the means-tested approach that is entailed in that."?
	What could be clearer than those words? So as the Minister loyally defends his policy of mass means-testing, does he not feel the tectonic plates shifting underneath him, as he realises how few people believe that it is working?

Malcolm Wicks: I hear the Tory plates crashing all over the place. Of course I listened to what the Deputy Prime Minister said, and we do recognise that some people will fear that this policy constitutes old-fashioned means-testing—not least because of the campaign of fear that some are waging. But when, on phoning our Pension Service, elderly people are able to discover within a short time whether they are eligible for the pension credit, they know that this is a 21st century service. Two out of three people claiming pension credit are women—2 million women are claiming, compared with 1 million men, and the policy is helping elderly women in particular—and that is a very strong feature of this Government's social policy.

Paul Farrelly: What the rate of take-up of pension credits is in Newcastle-under-Lyme.

Maria Eagle: As at 31 May, 3,905 pensioner households in Newcastle-under-Lyme, comprising some 4,700 individuals, were in receipt of pension credit. That is a 50 per cent. increase in take-up of the minimum income guarantee.

Paul Farrelly: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does she recognise that despite Opposition carping, thousands of pensioners in Newcastle-under-Lyme and north Staffordshire have benefited under Labour from pension increases, guaranteed minimum incomes and the pension credit? That is real progress, which would be reversed if the Tories took office again. Does she also recognise that despite the flimsy promise that the Liberal Democrats made last year to knock £100 off council tax, but which they have now dropped—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the Minister can answer the question.

Maria Eagle: Anybody would think that some elections were going on. I did hope to hear what my hon. Friend had to say about the Liberal Democrats, but perhaps we can do so on another occasion. None the less, he is absolutely right to point out that the Opposition's policy would leave poorer pensioners on a—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Even the Minister is not allowed to talk about the Opposition's policies.

Health and Safety Executive

Tony Lloyd: What criteria he uses to assess the effectiveness of the Health and Safety Executive.

Jane Kennedy: Notwithstanding the fact that the United Kingdom has one of the best health and safety records in Europe, in 2000 the Government set targets further to reduce accidents and ill health caused by work. The Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive have developed a new strategy to help to deliver these targets, and I hold quarterly performance reviews with the HSE, at which key indicators on performance are discussed, among other matters.

Tony Lloyd: My right hon. Friend will agree that for any Labour Government, health and safety are at the highest point on the political agenda, but does she accept that the strategy agreed by this Government and the Health and Safety Commission is not being adhered to and that we are not seeing the reductions in deaths, serious injuries and workplace-related illness that we anticipated? Will the Government therefore give a clear commitment to that strategy and will they ensure that the Health and Safety Executive has the necessary funding to enforce and prosecute, which it is currently failing to do? Will they also introduce the promised legislation, in order to provide real power to crack down on rogue employers who kill and injure our fellow countrymen and women in the workplace?

Jane Kennedy: I do acknowledge the importance that many Members in all parts of the House attach to health and safety, but I do not accept my hon. Friend's observation that the Health and Safety Executive has failed to progress towards achieving these targets. Delivering on the targets is not just about more cash or more inspectors. All organisations such as the HSE can always use more funding, but effective regulation of health and safety at work is about more than that: it is about providing the right information and advice; training; working with and through others; and changing workplace culture. The threat of enforcement is an important element in that regard, and in the light of my increasingly close work with the HSE, I am satisfied that, although there are areas in which we need to make more progress, on the whole the HSE and the Health and Safety Commission are keeping these targets in focus and are working towards achieving them.

George Osborne: A fortnight ago, as the Minister will be aware, the Health and Safety Executive's Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002 came into force. In those regulations, the agency makes no distinction between the deadly blue and brown forms of asbestos, which have caused such suffering, and the far less risky white asbestos. Is the Minister aware of reports that unscrupulous contractors are using that confusion to rip off home owners, small businesses, farmers and others? What is she doing to ensure that a well meant attempt to protect public health does not become a regulatory nightmare?

Jane Kennedy: I will look closely into those allegations and if there is any truth in what the hon. Gentleman is saying, I shall certainly look into the matter further. I am grateful to him for bringing it to my attention.

Barry Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is about time the Health and Safety Executive ceased to be a sort of back office of a Government Department? Is it not time we gave it some real independence? I understand that the HSE would dearly like to campaign and to push the Government into doing something about protecting workers from passive smoking at work, but that the Government are leaning on it to be quiet. If that is true, it is a disgrace. Is it not about time the Government grasped the nettle and protected workers?

Jane Kennedy: The Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive are independent organisations and they are not coming under pressure from the Government not to pursue a campaign on smoking at work, so I am afraid that I cannot accept the basis of my hon. Friend's question.

Bob Spink: The Health and Safety Executive is an excellent and important organisation that does good work. Will the Minister congratulate it on its targeting of major causes of accidents, particularly falls from height on building sites? Does she agree that it is important to provide safer methods of forming barriers across openings at height on building sites—for instance, where lift shafts are being provided for—and is she aware that the Fullgate system, which does just that, is manufactured on Canvey Island?

Jane Kennedy: I was not aware of that last fact, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing the House's attention to it. He is right to congratulate the Health and Safety Executive on its good and effective work on the incidence of injuries caused by workers falling from height. Indeed, the rate of reported major injury to employees is now about 3 per cent. lower than it was in 2000, the base year for the targets that I spoke about earlier. However, the balance of evidence suggests that the overall incidence of work-related ill health is likely to have risen, so we are not complacent. We accept that there is a lot more to do and we keep all such matters under constant review.

New Deal

Helen Jones: How many women in Warrington, North have benefited from the new deal for lone parents since its introduction.

Andrew Smith: In my hon. Friend's constituency, 390 women have taken part in the new deal for lone parents and 220 have so far been helped into work. That is part of the progress across the country that has resulted, for the first time, in more than half of lone parents being in jobs, that has lifted children out of poverty and saved the taxpayer £40 million a year.

Helen Jones: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Many of the women whom I have met who have taken part in the new deal for lone parents are grateful for the work that they have obtained as a result, but I ask my right hon. Friend now to examine the needs of women after they have got jobs under the scheme, because they may need help to develop their careers. They may need information about their rights at work, about courses that they could take and so on, so that not only are they in jobs but they have careers. Will my right hon. Friend undertake to look into what can be done to assist lone parents once they have gone back to work?

Andrew Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for her welcome for the progress that the new deal is making in her constituency and for her advocacy of it. The new deal for lone parents is already making a difference on the issues connected with progress at work that she is concerned about: those who get jobs through the new deal are 15 per cent. more likely to stay in work than those who get jobs in similar circumstances in other ways. The preparation, the training and support and the personal advice are already making a difference. The further expansion of child care, with places for an additional 2 million children by 2006, and the work of the new child care partnerships, coupled with skills and training advice and workplace rights, are, I believe, the building blocks of the sort of flexible and responsive system that my hon. Friend and I both want to see, and towards which we are making progress.

Graham Brady: The Secretary of State will know that one of the main causes for concern about the new deal is that so many people, tens of thousands, have been through it twice, three times or more. How many of the women in Warrington, North who have been helped by the new deal for lone parents have been through the scheme more than once?

Andrew Smith: I would have to check that statistic, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) said, the 220 women who have gained jobs—a significant proportion of those who took part in the programme—welcome those jobs and are more likely to stay in them because they have had the help given by the new deal. Their biggest anxiety would be the Conservative party's plans to scrap it.

Pension Protection Fund

David Amess: If he will make a statement on the decision to offer compensation to those members of occupational pension schemes who will not be covered by the proposed pension protection fund.

Andrew Smith: I dare say that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the Government have amended the Pensions Bill to introduce a financial assistance scheme for those workers who lost out on their defined-benefit occupational pensions prior to the introduction of the pension protection fund. Further details of the scheme, including who will be eligible and the level of assistance to be provided, will be developed through consultation with stakeholders such as pension scheme trustees, trades unions and business representatives.

David Amess: Is not the Secretary of State disappointed by the reaction to his announcement in Southend, West and throughout the country? Does he recognise that his announcement does not address the serious scale of the problem? Will he use the unclaimed assets in banks and building societies so that the general public, who have been so badly affected, can receive a decent amount of money?

Andrew Smith: In terms of reaction, Derek Simpson of Amicus said:
	"This is great news for our members whose pensions were cruelly snatched away when their companies went bust."
	Digby Jones of the Confederation of British Industry said:
	"We are delighted that government has responded to calls for action . . . The amounts the government is suggesting are not enormous but the impact on the lives of those individuals affected will be huge."
	That is as positive as reaction can get.

Frank Field: May I welcome the Government's announcement of a lifeboat operation? May I press the Secretary of State further, however, on the distinction that some Ministers are making between those who have lost their pensions because of an involuntary wind-up through bankruptcy and those who have lost all or part of their pensions because their firm has voluntarily wound up a pension scheme? For those involved, the loss of a pension, for whatever cause, has exactly the same effect. What is the Secretary of State's thinking on whether those who have lost all or part of their pensions because a scheme has been voluntarily wound up will be treated equally to the others?

Andrew Smith: I accept the force of my right hon. Friend's concern, but he will be aware, as others are, that as we have considered these important issues in recent months, I have been careful on each and every occasion to say that where a boundary is drawn around those eligible for assistance, that boundary is bound to be difficult and some people are bound to fall on the wrong side of it. The thrust of the campaign expressing concerns was about insolvent wind-ups, as has been reflected in the statements made by me and my ministerial colleagues. We have made it clear that as we bring the scheme forward and engage with stakeholders and expert groups in defining eligibility conditions, we shall listen to everyone who has representations to make.

Steve Webb: I welcome the Government's movement on this issue, but does the Secretary of State accept that a hardship fund is not enough? Many workers were not warned that their pensions would be at risk if their employer became insolvent. Indeed, it is worse than that: Government literature from the Financial Services Authority and from the Minister's Department said that pensions from companies were guaranteed. If workers had known that their pensions would be at risk if their employer became insolvent, they could, close to retirement, have got the money out to save their pensions, especially if their employer looked risky. But no one told them so.
	Does the Minister accept that if a personal pension salesman did not tell people about the risks, he would be done for mis-selling? Are not the Government guilty of mis-selling occupational pensions?

Andrew Smith: Again, I accept the strong feelings of injustice and anger that members of these schemes will have expressed, and which the hon. Gentleman's remarks partly reflect. However, I have to say that there is not a legal liability here, so talk of compensation in the terms expressed by the hon. Gentleman is not appropriate. I felt—as did hon. Members on both sides of the House—that, because of these workers' plight, it was right to do something about it. That is why we announced the scheme and why we pledged £400 million, plus such help as could be obtained from the industry. It is not an insignificant sum and it will make a real difference to those affected. The hon. Gentleman should be warmer in his welcome for it.

John Robertson: My right hon. Friend should be congratulated on the work that he did with the PPF and on supplying the £400 million. However, the criteria governing who does and who does not receive the money have to be simple and clear. Does he agree with that?

Andrew Smith: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome and kind remarks. Yes, I agree that we must make it as simple and clear as possible, though bitter experience teaches us that little in the field of occupational pensions is quite as simple or straightforward as we would like. In terms of the way forward, we have clearly set out how we intend to proceed. We are already engaging key partners—both stakeholders and expert groups—in consultation on the scheme's development. By the end of this month we will lay a report on the scope of the problem before the House. By the end of November, we will start consulting on regulations. We are working towards the legislation being in place for spring next year, so we are moving as quickly as we can.

David Willetts: Can the Secretary of State assure the House that any payments that victims of pension wind-ups receive from the Government's compensation scheme will not lead to a reduction in means-tested benefits?

Andrew Smith: I am not going to give a blanket assurance on that, but our aim is certainly to try to ensure that people will not be worse off as a consequence of having received this help than they would otherwise have been.

David Willetts: May I press the Secretary of State a little more on that? As we know from a figure that he gave to the House when answering one of my questions in a debate, 60,000 people are affected. We have heard about a scheme that provides £20 million a year—about £400 million in total. That amounts to about £7,000 per person affected, which might be worth £350 a year—a very small sum compared with the size of the losses that many constituents of Members on both sides of the House are facing. It would add insult to injury if those people were then told that they would have reductions in their means-tested benefits because of the Government's assistance. I very much hope that the Secretary of State will consider the matter further and give the House an assurance that there will not be a loss of means-tested benefits.

Andrew Smith: Of course we will be looking very carefully into all those aspects and their impact on individuals. I would not want to accept—and I would not want the record to show that I had implicitly accepted—the basis of the hon. Gentleman's calculations, by which I mean neither the average amount nor the means by which he arrived at it. The precise means by which help will be provided—and, indeed, any additional contributions—will depend on the definition of eligibility for the scheme.
	If the hon. Gentleman thought for a moment about the interaction with the pension credit system, he would realise that if people had the occupational pension that they had previously expected, it might well have taken them out of eligibility for assistance from the pension credit. In those circumstances, and to the extent that that credit is replaced, it would be illogical—and, indeed, unfair to those who were not in the scheme—if no account were taken of it.

George Foulkes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I am astonished at the churlishness of the Tories, and especially the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) in his attack on my right hon. Friend? My constituents believe that he and the Minister of State did an excellent job arguing for the scheme, obtaining the £400 million and getting the Prime Minister to intervene. Can my right hon. Friend give us the further assurance that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) was seeking—that in implementing the scheme, he will be as flexible as possible and will ensure that no one is excluded on a technicality?

Andrew Smith: As I said, we will certainly be looking very carefully at the views that have been expressed. There is no point in misleading people on that. However a scheme is defined, and whatever the eligibility conditions, there are bound to be some people who will be disappointed. That has been in the nature of things since the beginning. It is important, as I have said all along, that we can look people straight in the eye and that they know that we have been straight with them. As to the churlishness of the Conservatives, I am never surprised at how churlish they are, any more than I am surprised by the loyalty and enthusiasm of my right hon. Friend, which is greatly appreciated.

Andrew Selous: Will the Secretary of State now answer the excellent question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) about the unclaimed assets fund? The right hon. Gentleman is aware that people will receive only between £350 and £500 a year. Why cannot a claim be made on the unclaimed assets fund to help those 60,000 people?

Andrew Smith: There is no unclaimed assets fund on which to make a claim. If there were, and if funds were available to help with the scheme, it would be very welcome.

Mental Health

Ann Coffey: What assessment he has made of the contribution of Work Link in Stockport to supporting people with mental health problems to move back into work.

Maria Eagle: Stockport council's Work Link initiative has been providing a well regarded, work-focused service to people with mental health impairments since 1998. I am pleased that Work Link is working closely with Jobcentre Plus and I am confident that their partnership will continue to deliver the intense one-to-one support that has been successful in helping 68 people with mental health impairments into work since 1999.

Ann Coffey: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Work Link has been providing employment services to people with severe learning disabilities and mental health problems for several years and has had a remarkable success rate in placing people in work. However, because of changes in the structure of bidding for the European social fund, the long-term financial support for the project is now in doubt. Will my hon. Friend visit Work Link in my constituency, see for herself the excellent services that are being provided, and discuss the possibilities for sustainable, long-term funding to assure the future of the project?

Maria Eagle: I am keen to continue successful partnerships with organisations such as Work Link, which has developed specialist expertise to help many people who have traditionally been ignored by society and written off as incapable of work. I am more than happy to visit Stockport and Work Link as soon as I have the opportunity to do so to discuss those issues with the project's staff.

Jobcentre Plus

Tam Dalyell: Pursuant to his oral answer of 26 April 2004, Official Report, columns 631-32W, on Jobcentre Plus (Scotland), how much has been invested in Jobcentre Plus in Scotland in the most recent convenient period.

Jane Kennedy: In Scotland in the last financial year, £48.8 million was invested in welfare-to-work programmes and more than £31 million in the roll-out of new Jobcentre Plus offices and new contact centres. Forty-five of the new Jobcentre Plus offices are now open in Scotland, including the Bathgate office in my hon. Friend's constituency.

Tam Dalyell: How successful has Jobcentre Plus been in bringing the hitherto economically inactive back into productive work?

Jane Kennedy: Nationally, more than 276,000 people have been helped into work through the new deals for lone parents and disabled people, who are some of our hardest to help customers. In Scotland, the new deal for lone parents has assisted 26,780 people back into work since its introduction in 1998.

John McFall: The question for my right hon. Friend the Minister is whether that investment has been worth while. In the review of district structure, the new Highlands, Islands and Clyde coast district includes Dumbarton. The new headquarters for that district is 182 miles away in Inverness. Kevin Doran, the director for Scotland, has confirmed in a letter to me that the new structure is about economies of scale, but I would like reassurance from my right hon. Friend that it is also about efficiency, convenient access and customer care. Can I have such guarantees on behalf of my constituents?

Jane Kennedy: The development of Jobcentre Plus is about building on the high quality service already provided by social security offices and jobcentres by delivering a single integrated service to all people of working age, with a clear focus on work. It is about delivering more flexibility to the staff who are in the closest contact with my hon. Friend's constituents. I undertake to ensure that we continue to work with Jobcentre Plus to keep assistance to customers and customer service at the forefront of our targets.

Income Support

David Tredinnick: How many people he estimates are not claiming the income support to which they are entitled; and if he will make a statement.

Chris Pond: We want all people who are eligible for benefits to take up their entitlement. Our most recent estimate is that between 86 and 95 per cent of people who are entitled to income support are receiving it, leaving between 110,000 and 350,000 working-age adults not receiving it.Among claimants with children, take-up is higher at between 93 and 99 per cent.

David Tredinnick: I thank the Minister for that reply. Can he tell us whether the number of people claiming housing benefit, council tax benefit and income support is going up or down overall? If the overall number is going up, does not that show the Government elected in 1997 as a dismal failure?

Chris Pond: No, it shows considerable success across the board. The hon. Gentleman will have heard my hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions talking about what we are doing and about our great success in extending access to the pension credit. He will know that we have launched a campaign on council tax benefit. Because the eligibility limits for many of those benefits have been increased generously, it is true that more people have become entitled and we are working hard to ensure that those newly entitled people get the benefits to which they are entitled and make claims as appropriate.

Harry Barnes: Are some people who are in receipt of child support allowance missing out on income support? I have a letter sent on behalf of the chief executive of Jobcentre Plus. It shows that the change that came in on 12 April means that:
	"As the children will not be included in the calculation for Income Support, any income they receive, including maintenance payments, will not be taken into consideration".
	That is being countermanded by local provision. The Chesterfield manager states that it is misleading because maintenance payments are made not to the children but to the parent. Can the matter be clarified? Are some people missing out on income support because they are on Child Support Agency money?

Chris Pond: As my hon. Friend will know, we have made an important change in saying that maintenance payments will not be taken into account in the child tax credit, but I shall look into the specific issue he raised and the confusion that has arisen as a result of the fact that support for children has moved from income support across to a seamless system of child tax credits.

Tim Boswell: On the operation of the benefits system generally, with particular reference to income-related benefits, has the Minister had a chance to read the annual report of the Daventry welfare rights group for the last fiscal year? It reports a staggering 50 per cent. increase in the work load and comments simply that new benefits are introduced and the common factor is chaos. Would not Ministers be better advised to stop tinkering with the system and to make a real effort to reduce its complexity and its over-dependence on means-testing?

Chris Pond: I have to say that that particular publication did not form part of my weekend's reading, but I shall make sure that it is part of my next weekend's reading. However, I am absolutely sure that the publication will have included reference to the fact that we are the first Government ever to have set ourselves a target of, first, halving and then eliminating child poverty and that we are determined to deal with pensioner poverty. That is why we have had to sort out much of the benefits mess left to us by the previous Government and why we have had to introduce benefits such as the pension credit, which assists many thousands of pensioners in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, as it does elsewhere in the country.

Housing Allowance

Siobhain McDonagh: What progress has been made in piloting the standard local housing allowance in the private rented sector.

Chris Pond: We are making excellent progress on the local housing allowance pathfinders. All nine pathfinder local authorities have implemented the reforms smoothly and we have put in place a comprehensive and independent evaluation. Although these are early days, the indications are that the local housing allowance is working well.

Siobhain McDonagh: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. With specific reference to London, what are the early findings? Although the pilot on the standard local housing allowance is welcome, I foresee problems in London where demand for accommodation of all sorts is huge.

Chris Pond: In choosing the pathfinders, we wanted to ensure that we were able to cover high demand areas as well as low demand areas. That is why one of the nine pathfinders is based in London, and we shall look carefully at the implications of that for the working of the scheme. In Lewisham, 2,000 people are already in receipt of the local housing allowance, and it is working well at present. As I said, these are early days and we have announced that a further wave of local authorities will be included in a local housing allowance scheme to see operationally how it will work in practice. We have received a tremendous response from local authorities that would like to be involved and we shall announce which of them will be included in the near future. We hope that one of them, too, will be in London.

Anne McIntosh: Is this the best time to be transferring the new scheme to the private rented sector, bearing in mind the tremendous pressure that that sector of the housing market is coming under, particularly in north Yorkshire, and the lack of affordable homes in that area? What discussions has the Minister or his Department had with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to try to alleviate the situation by getting more homes from the private rented sector on to the market and by providing more affordable homes?

Chris Pond: The hon. Lady makes an important point, and I can tell her that we have had extensive discussions with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. We need to tackle the issue from both ends. We need to make sure that more affordable housing becomes available and, at the same time, that tenants have more choice and more ability to make decisions about how they spend their incomes. That means ensuring that they make the decisions about quality in terms of the housing available.

Vera Baird: Can my hon. Friend tell the House how the local housing allowance pilots—which, on the face of it, should permit people to make choices about the type and quality of their accommodation—are working and whether, in particular, in poorer areas such as mine there is evidence that people are exercising their power of choice to trade up or to trade down?

Chris Pond: Yes, I can say that, in the pathfinders, the overall effect—whether it be in the high demand or low demand areas—seems to be generally very positive. We are not seeing great problems in terms of the extension of choice to tenants. In areas such as that of my hon. and learned Friend, the available evidence seems to suggest that when people have the choices and the income to make those choices a reality, they tend to trade up in the quality of their accommodation. That would be our expectation.

Child Support Agency

Alistair Carmichael: If he will make a statement on the operation of the Child Support Agency.

Chris Pond: The new scheme of child support was introduced for new cases and for those connected to the new scheme in March last year. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made regular progress reports to the House. Following his last report on 21 April, I can tell the House that more than 180,000 cases have now been cleared and more than 22,000 of the poorest families are already benefiting from the new child maintenance premium.

Alistair Carmichael: I thank the Minister for that answer, but the stream of complaints made in my surgeries by constituents who continue to have their liability for child support assessed according to the old rules continues unabated. Have the Government set a date for the complete migration of all cases in the CSA from the old system to the new? What is that date?

Chris Pond: No, we have not set a date. Overall, the number of complaints is falling and those that are made are being resolved more quickly by the agency. We have been straightforward with the House in saying that we cannot and will not transfer cases to the new system until we are absolutely sure that the new system and the IT are working properly. We cannot give a date on that, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it clear that, in his view—and, I am sure, in the view of the House as a whole—it would be irresponsible to make that transition until we are sure that the IT is working properly.

David Taylor: Has my hon. Friend looked at the proportion of the old case load that will be affected by the 15 per cent., 20 per cent. or 25 per cent. change and considered what the number of winners and losers might be? There is a great deal of anxiety out there and much pressure for the rollback to take place as early as possible. In particular, in the case of CSA clients in North-West Leicestershire, who are largely dealt with by staff in either Dudley or Belfast, the number of caseworkers that individual resident parents have to deal with over quite a short time is excessive. Will he look at the stability and training of staff there?

Chris Pond: Certainly, that is an issue that we are looking at to make sure that staff have the right and adequate amount of training. We understand the anxieties that people feel in waiting for the new system to come fully into operation. Everybody will accept that it is a much better system than the one set up by the Conservative party: it is simpler, fairer and more straightforward. However, as I have said, it would be irresponsible of us to try to make that transition until we know that the IT is working smoothly to ensure that payments go to the children who need the support.

Pension Payments

Brian Iddon: How many pensioners are receiving payment of their pensions at post offices in the Bolton, South-East constituency.

Chris Pond: As at 17 April 2004, 6,000 pensioners in Bolton, South-East received their payments by order book, which they cash at the Post Office. Almost 5,500 pensioners have had their money paid directly into an account. Many of those pensioners can access their payments in cash at the post office through the wider range of banking services now available at post office branches.

Brian Iddon: All of us are being asked to remember more and more personal identification numbers and passwords, the latest example being the Fees Office, but at least it gives Members of Parliament clues to help us out. Is my hon. Friend aware that some pensioners find it extremely difficult to remember their PINs for the post office and that as a consequence some post offices are keeping lists of those PINs behind the counter? Will he discuss that problem with Post Office Counters Ltd. the next time he meets its representatives?

Chris Pond: I certainly will. We understand that some people may have difficulty remembering their PINs, and my hon. Friend suggests that he might be one of them. I do not know whether he has taken out a Post Office card account, but I can tell him that he will not be entitled to it. It is not good banking practice for anyone, including sub-postmasters, to keep PINs behind the counter. I am not sure that that is good for the system's overall security. Of course, customers have the opportunity to change the PIN originally allocated to a number that they can more easily remember—perhaps their date of birth—and it is the job of staff and sub-postmasters to remind them of that. However, we have always recognised that a small number of people will not be able to operate the PIN system effectively, which is why we have announced a cheque-based system of payment, to begin from October this year.

Anne Begg: I congratulate the pensioners of Bolton, South-East on getting a PIN because that means they have managed to open a Post Office card account, which is still proving very difficult and a bureaucratic nightmare. Will the Minister consider the various stages that a pensioner has to go through to open a Post Office card account to ensure that the system is much easier to use and that some of the silly rules, which act as a barrier to people opening such accounts, are removed?

Chris Pond: Already, 3 million customers have said that they want to open a Post Office card account and 2 million have done so. We recognise that some customers may find the process difficult, but we have made it as simple as we can. We are considering ways to make the process more customer friendly and simpler to operate. We are in discussions with the Post Office on how best to do that.

Pension Credit

Paul Flynn: If he will make a statement on the take-up of pension credit.

Malcolm Wicks: As the progress report published today shows, 2.5 million households—including 3 million individuals—are now receiving the pension credit. This includes just short of 4,000 pensioner households in my hon. Friend's constituency.

Paul Flynn: That is a very good story, but there is one curious aspect to it, as reflected in the answer that my hon. Friend gave to me a few months ago—and that is the percentage take-up between urban and rural areas. In the prosperous rural areas, the increase in the take-up this year was 43 per cent., but in the poorer rural areas it was a mere 31 per cent. and just 19 per cent. in London. Has the Minister given some thought to that and to how he will conduct future campaigns to concentrate on the urban areas, where the need is almost certainly greater?

Malcolm Wicks: We are studying reasons for variations of the sort illustrated by my hon. Friend and I shall report back when we have some firm conclusions. However, a local pension service allows us to tailor the campaigns to local circumstances. I am happy to talk to him about how we might better do that, although the local pension service is doing an excellent job in his constituency.

Stockline Plastics Factory Explosion

Ann McKechin: If he will make a statement on the Health and Safety Executive investigation into the Stockline Plastics factory explosion in Glasgow.

Jane Kennedy: The Lord Advocate, Colin Boyd, and the chair of the Health and Safety Commission, Bill Callaghan, agreed that there should be a joint investigation into the factory explosion in Glasgow on 11 May 2004, involving the Health and Safety Executive, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service, and Strathclyde police. That joint investigation is now proceeding in a co-ordinated and co-operative manner, but it is too early to speculate on the cause of the explosion.

Ann McKechin: I thank my right hon. Friend for her reply. I take this opportunity to give credit to the emergency workers, the voluntary sector and the local community in Maryhill for their marvellous response to this tragedy. Clearly, as my right hon. Friend stated, we need to wait until the full evidence is available before making any judgment as to the cause of the tragedy, but will she assure the House that if the inquiry should show evidence of a health and safety failure, there will be a full, independent investigation of the role of the Health and Safety Executive in its earlier visits to the factory?

Jane Kennedy: I, too, want to add my words of congratulation not only to the members of the emergency services, but to the staff of the Health and Safety Executive who were on site very quickly after the incident. The HSE has visited the site of a number of occasions in the past 30 years; indeed, it has done so twice in the past four years. Following standard procedure, it will be conducting a prior role inquiry to determine whether there are lessons to be learned, both for the employer and for the HSE.

Iraq

Jack Straw: With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on political and diplomatic developments relating to Iraq.
	Under a revised and accelerated timetable agreed on 15 November last year, and endorsed by the Security Council in resolution 1511, full authority will transfer from the occupying powers, the United States and the United Kingdom in just three weeks' time, by 30 June, to a sovereign interim Iraqi Government. That Government will be in office until 31 January next year, by which time national elections for a transitional Government and constituent Assembly are due to have been held. The transitional Government and Assembly will oversee, among other things, the drafting of a new constitution, with a view to its agreement and elections for a Government on the basis of the new constitution by the end of next year.
	To facilitate that process, the UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, appointed Ambassador Lakhdar Brahimi to nominate the interim Government. On 1 June, Ambassador Brahimi announced the appointment of Sheikh Ghazi al-Yawir as the new President; two deputy Presidents, Dr. Ibrahim al-Jafari and Dr. Rowsch Shaways; and a new Prime Minister, Dr. Iyad Alawi.
	Dr. Alawi's Cabinet was also announced on 1 June in a joint press conference with Ambassador Brahimi. Twenty-two of its 31 members are newcomers—that is, not former members of the Iraqi Governing Council—and six are women. In an address to the nation last Friday, Dr Alawi identified his Government's priorities as the restoration of Iraqi sovereignty; security; economic revival; national unity; and preparations for elections.
	Immediately following the announcements on 1 June, the Iraqi Governing Council dissolved itself and handed over its responsibilities to the new Government, including control of the 14 Ministries already under full Iraqi authority. The remaining 11 Ministries will be transferred by 30 June, at which point the coalition provisional authority will dissolve and the occupation will come to an end.
	It is appropriate at this moment for me to record the British Government's appreciation of Ambassador Bremer, who heads the coalition provisional authority, and particularly of Ambassadors Greenstock and Richmond and all the staff in the British part of the coalition provisional authority for the contribution that they have made.
	The announcement of the new interim Government was the fruit of many weeks of wide-ranging consultations conducted by Ambassador Brahimi and his team. The result is, I believe, a competent, professional and broad-based Government acceptable to the widest possible range of Iraqis and reflective of Iraq's diversity. The new Government have been welcomed by the United Nations, by the European Union, by many Governments in the region and by key figures in Iraq such as Ayatollah al-Sistani, the leading Shi'a cleric. I am sure that the House will wish to join me in paying tribute to the outstanding work of Ambassador Brahimi and his staff; in congratulating all the members of Iraq's new Government on their appointment; and in offering the Government our full support.
	Meanwhile, Ambassador Brahimi has made recommendations for the membership of a supreme commission, to be formed within days, to prepare a national conference to be held this July. The conference will include a diverse range of Iraqi voices in the political process, thus providing for the broadest possible representation. It is expected to elect an interim national council of about 100 members, whose role will be to promote constructive dialogue and national consensus; to advise the presidency and the Council of Ministers; to monitor the work of the Executive, including the implementation of laws; to have the power of veto over Executive orders; and to approve the national budget.
	The United Nations will advise on the organisation of the national, regional and local elections, which are to be held no later than 31 January next year. We welcome the formation of an Iraqi independent electoral commission to prepare for those elections, with UN assistance. The commission's members have been recommended by the UN. I pay tribute to the work of Carina Perelli, head of the UN electoral assistance division, and her team for making all that possible.
	As the House will be aware, the United States and the United Kingdom have proposed that there should be a new Security Council resolution to facilitate the transfer of sovereignty by 30 June. Drafts have been under discussion in New York and between capitals for some weeks. Those discussions with our Security Council partners have taken place in a constructive atmosphere, and I hope that the process may be brought to a conclusion very soon.
	Key elements of the resolution affirm the full sovereignty of the interim Government and give the United Nations a lead role in support of the political process. The mandate of the multinational force is dealt with both within the text of the resolution and in an exchange of letters to the President of the Security Council from, on the one hand, the Prime Minister of Iraq and, on the other, the United States Secretary of State Colin Powell on behalf of the multinational force. The draft resolution provides that the mandate of the multinational force will expire in any event by 31 December 2005, but the Iraqi Government will have a clear right to review or to terminate it earlier if they so wish. The draft resolution and the letters lay down in some detail the nature of the relationship between the multinational force and Iraq's own security forces, and state the need to reach agreement on fundamental security and policy issues, including policy on sensitive offensive operations. I am placing the text of both letters in the Libraries of both Houses.
	The Iraqi Foreign Minister, Hoshyar Zebari, addressed the Security Council last Thursday 3 June in New York. He asked that the international community endorse and support the Iraqi interim Government as quickly as possible, made clear his support for the resolution and made a number of points about the provisions of the resolution, which are now being dealt with. The Security Council has been holding further discussions about the resolution over the weekend and will resume those discussions later today in New York. A revised draft text is due to be circulated to Security Council members later today. If it is—and, in any event, as soon as it is—circulated, I shall lay it before the House and place a copy in the Library of the House of Lords.
	The biggest challenge that the new Government of Iraq will face is to build security. There will be those who will continue to seek to disrupt the transition to successful democracy in Iraq and to force decisions by the bomb, not by the ballot box; but the Iraqi Government are firmly resolved to defeat the men of violence, and we are resolved to help them to do so. The multinational force, including British troops, continues to work with the Iraqis to stabilise the country and to assist the process of reconstruction and political transition. The force is helping Iraq's own security forces to build their capacity. The Iraqi police force now numbers some 89,000 men, the Iraqi civil defence corps 29,000, the border police 8,000, and the facilities protection service some 74,000.
	I pay tribute to the courage and bravery of all those in Iraq who are working to build peace and democracy. The British troops of the multinational force, along with many British police and civilians, are giving them vital and courageous help. There will be some difficult times ahead, but the path to a free and democratic Iraq is now clear, and the British Government will remain committed to helping the Iraqi Government and people to achieve that historic goal.

Michael Ancram: May I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement and for giving me advance sight of it? I am sure that he will join me in paying a brief tribute to the late President Reagan, of whom it can truly be said that he left an indelible mark on history, and that he challenged the seemingly inevitable march of communism and won. We have lost a champion and a friend.
	Recent events in Iraq have at last provided the basic elements of a working plan to deliver a representative and democratic Iraq, run by Iraqis, before the end of the year. This plan is long overdue and there is already a feeling of time lost, which has in turn led to increased tension and hostility on the ground. History will judge critically, as we have consistently from the Conservative Benches, the political incompetence of the Government and the instability that has flowed from their failure to plan adequately and early enough for the post-war reconstruction of Iraq and its return to democracy.
	However, progress has been made over the last two   weeks. We welcome the appointment of Prime Minister designate Iyad Alawi, President designate Ghazi al-Yawir, and the rest of the interim Government. We also welcome the endorsement of the United Nations for those appointments, which is something that we have long called for. The interim Government in waiting have made a good start, but they must establish their credibility by being genuinely representative of the people of Iraq. They must secure and retain the backing of the mainstream Sunni and Shi'a communities, and of the Kurds in the north. They must not be seen as placemen of the coalition, and the coalition must never act in such a way as to suggest that they are. I also welcome the latest draft of the United Nations Security Council resolution. It certainly reflects our desire for a clear and comprehensive plan that includes the United Nations, and we wish it a fair wind.
	There remain, however, a number of crucial questions to which we seek full answers today. What is the distinction highlighted in the latest draft resolution between international law and what is called "international humanitarian law", and what implications could this have for the actions of our troops on the ground? Then there are the vital questions about the relationship between the interim Government and the multinational force after 30 June. The answers to some of these questions might be in the letters that the Foreign Secretary is placing in the Library of the House, but that is no reason for him not to answer them himself this afternoon, when he can be questioned further on the detail.
	Apparently the interim Government can ask us to leave, but will they have a veto over what the multinational force can undertake operationally on the ground? If, for instance, the interim Government were to say that there could be no further deployments in Falluja or Najaf, would that be an end of the matter? Conversely, do they have a right to request that our forces should be deployed in particular places for particular purposes and in particular ways? What veto would our commanders have on such requests? Can we be assured that these vital outstanding issues will be settled and clear before the resolution is passed by the Security Council, so that there can be no arguments afterwards? I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will agree that absolute clarity on the chain of command is essential to the safety and security of our troops.
	What chances are there of engaging further armed forces, with the backing of the United Nations, particularly from Arab or other Muslim nations, to help to provide security and training in Iraq? Where have we got to in the hunt for weapons of mass destruction? Given the accusations being made in America, and the recent resignation of the director of the CIA, George Tenet, would it not be wise, in the interests of public confidence, to put on hold the appointment of John Scarlett as head of MI6, at least until the Butler inquiry has reported?
	Finally, on the question of further British troop deployments, given the damaging uncertainties caused by persistent Government briefings and counter-briefings over recent months, and given the suspicion that the Government, for party political reasons, are withholding announcements of bigger deployments outwith our area of control until after Thursday's elections, can the Foreign Secretary categorically assure the House that between 11 and 30 June no further deployments will be announced for outside Multinational Division (South East)? It would be unforgivable were the Government, for party political and electoral considerations, to play fast and loose with the interests of our armed forces.
	Once again, I commend our armed forces for the remarkable work that they are doing with such courage, skill and dedication, on our behalf, in Iraq. We wish them well. On their behalf, however, we want answers to these questions, not in prime ministerial press conferences, lobby briefings or lengthy, rambling interviews by the Foreign Secretary on the "Today" programme, but here in the House of Commons, and we want those answers today.

Jack Straw: Of course, I am happy to associate myself and the Government with the remarks made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman about the death of President Reagan, who was a historic figure in the United States and the west.
	I listened with great care to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It would have been altogether slightly more impressive and consistent with his earlier position of supporting military action had he adopted a rather less cavilling and churlish approach. He was so anxious not to talk about the subject that for one moment I thought that he was going to talk about Europe, until I remembered the United Kingdom Independence party and the difficulties that that is causing the Conservatives.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me some questions about the amount of time that has been spent on developing this approach. I remind him that with the agreement of the Iraqis, we accelerated the whole time scale. Originally, the transfer of power was going to be made much later this year, running into next year. Following decisions that were made with the coalition provisional authority and the Iraqi Governing Council on 15 November, the current time scale was agreed. There was a lot of scepticism about whether it could be met in time, but it has been, and it was endorsed by resolution 1511. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me about what he says is the crucial distinction between international law and international humanitarian law—there is no distinction. At one point, international law is talked about generally, while at another, international humanitarian law is talked about because it is specific to the context.
	On the circumstances in which the Iraqi forces and multinational forces will co-operate, the letter from Dr. Iyad Alawi to the Security Council, which is also referenced by the letter from Colin Powell, deals with that in the second main paragraph on page 2—I provide that detail for the benefit of colleagues in the House who wish to look at it after this statement. It states:
	"The structures I have described in this letter will serve as the fora for the MNF and the Iraqi government to reach agreement on the full range of fundamental security and policy issues, including policy on sensitive offensive operations, and will ensure full partnership between Iraqi forces and the MNF, through close coordination and consultation."
	It continues:
	"Since these are sensitive issues for a number of sovereign governments, including Iraq and the United States, they need to be resolved in the framework of a mutual understanding on our strategic partnership."
	What we sought to do in these letters was to specify the framework of principles that should apply. By definition, since we are dealing with what will happen in the future, we cannot specify every single circumstance, but I do not believe that some of the difficulties that have arisen in recent months will arise under the arrangements. In any event, the Iraqi interim Government, as well as the transitional Government, after 31 January, have an absolute right both to call for a revision of the terms under which the multinational force operates and a right to call for its withdrawal. Taken together, those will be adequate protections to ensure that the Iraqis are fully involved in this partnership, but that commanders on the ground from the multinational force have proper operational control when they are involved in an operation.
	A further report is awaited from the Iraq survey group, and my statement does not relate to it directly.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence made a statement about the deployment of British troops just two weeks ago. If there are to be any further deployments—and for the moment it is a big if—my right hon. Friend will make a statement at the appropriate time.

Donald Anderson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the progress that has been made in building consensus, both in the United Nations Security Council and internally in Iraq. It is surely imperative that we give the new Iraqi interim Government the greatest possible degree of sovereignty, even if that means taking some risks.
	Can my right hon. Friend comment on Mr. Alawi's statement to al-Jazeera over the weekend that there should be greater progress towards finding places in the new Iraq for former Ba'athists who are not guilty of human rights abuses? Is that supported by our Government and, perhaps more particularly, by the United States Government?

Jack Straw: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for what he has said. I should make it clear that no degrees of sovereignty are being transferred by 30 June; authority and sovereignty are being transferred, full stop. As for progress on the absorption of former Ba'ath party members who are not implicated in the excesses of the regime, we strongly agree with Prime Minister Alawi, and that view is now shared by the United States Government.

Menzies Campbell: It would be ungenerous not to acknowledge that there has been real progress in recent days, but does the Foreign Secretary accept that the ultimate verdict will depend on the final terms of the resolution, on effective and credible implementation of its provisions and, in the end, on its acceptability to the Iraqi people as a whole?
	Can the Foreign Secretary tell us whether there are any differences of substance or nuance between Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government on security issues? Why is it necessary for matters concerning sensitive operations to be incorporated in letters rather than in the resolution itself?
	The Foreign Secretary will recall telling me in correspondence that he expected the resolution to restore control of all Iraqi resources and assets to the Iraqi Government. Will that be achieved in the new draft resolution, or are there any exceptions? In particular, will the interim Government have power to renegotiate any contracts relating to oil or oil exploration in Iraq?
	Finally, when does the Foreign Secretary expect the last British soldiers to leave Iraq?

Jack Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the spirit of his remarks.
	I think that an interim verdict will depend on the terms of the Security Council resolution and its acceptability in Iraq. I think that the ultimate verdict will depend on whether the process leads to a democratic, stable and secure Iraq; but it is my solemn hope and, now, my cautious expectation that that will be the case. Speaking for myself and, I believe, for many colleagues on both sides of the House, I think that if that happens—as I hope and expect it will—it will mean a great new beginning for the country that was so ravaged by three decades of tyranny under Saddam Hussein, in which hundreds of thousands of people died.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether there had been any differences of substance or nuance on security issues. There have been no fundamental differences. It will come as no surprise to the House that there has been extensive discussion, not only with other Security Council partners but with our friends in the United States Administration, about the precise wording of the resolution.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman also asked why it had been necessary to include the details of the security arrangements in letters rather than in the resolution itself. That is because the agreement needs to be between the multinational force and the Iraqi Government rather than the Security Council, on which the Iraqi Government do not happen to sit and on which, in any case, they would sit in a different capacity. However, the letters themselves are annexed to the resolution. They are public, and we readily conceded to Security Council partners that they needed to see the text of the final version of the letters, as signed, before it was reasonable to ask them to vote for the resolution because, in practice, they form an integral part of the overall decisions that we hope will be made in the Security Council shortly.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks about the renegotiation of contracts. Oil has always been the property of the Iraqis, none of it has been used to pay for the coalition and it will continue to be the property of the Iraqis. He asks whether there will be the power to renegotiate any of the contracts. The Iraqi interim Government have accepted under the transitional administrative law a self-denying ordinance—it has not been imposed on them—meaning that they will not take actions that are irrevocable and that would tie the hands of the elected Government who will be in place after 31 January. I think that that is right, but subject to that—and it is quite a big subject—they will be free to negotiate their own contracts.
	The right hon. and learned Gentleman's last question was what will be the last date on which British forces will be in Iraq. The last date under the mandate, if it is passed, will be 31 January 2005. Whether any troops will remain after that period will obviously, above all, be a matter for the Iraqi Government at the time, who, by that stage, will be fully elected and operating under their own constitution.

Robin Cook: May I welcome the broad thrust of my right hon. Friend's statement, especially the strong stress that he placed on the role of the United Nations? Many of us in the Chamber—I suspect himself included—would have welcomed such a central role for the UN from the start. Those of us who have been critical of the occupation should recognise that the events of recent months have obliged the United States to accept a much bolder transfer of sovereignty than it had been contemplating. Given the extent to which nudging from Britain has moved it in that direction, I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Foreign Office.
	Will my right hon. Friend clear up one point? A month ago, Ambassador Bremer said that the interim Government would not have the power to vary the laws that he brought in as presiding genius of the coalition authority. Will my right hon. Friend give me the further good news that the United States has also given ground on that point and that the interim Government will be able to amend the directives that they inherit from the coalition authority should they wish to do so?

Jack Straw: I thank my right hon. Friend for what he said, especially about the importance of the United Nations—I know that he has always subscribed to that view. May I make a correction to an answer that I gave a moment ago? It has been drawn to my attention that I talked about the mandate of the multinational force expiring on 31 January, but I should have said 31 December.
	My answer to my right hon. Friend is the same as my answer to the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell). The transitional administrative law was negotiated between the appointed Iraqi Governing Council and the coalition provisional authority. The interim Government have said that they have no intention of disturbing key elements of that because they do not want to pre-empt the rights of the transitional Government who will be in place, God willing, after being elected within a seven-month period. Subject to that, however, if they wish to make changes, they may do so because they are the sovereign Government of Iraq. The self-denying ordinance is not required by the Security Council and nor could it be required by the coalition, the role and authority of which finishes, full stop, on 30 June. As I made it clear in my statement, there will be laws passed by the interim Government that will go to the consultative council for supervision.

Francis Maude: Whatever the imperfections in planning and the difficulties of implementation, the coalition's objectives behind what it has done and tried to do in Iraq are the promotion of stability in the middle east, the enlargement of freedom and the promotion of the Iraqi people's ability to govern themselves rather than being subject to an unelected tyranny. Does the Foreign Secretary acknowledge that the insurgency and insurrection that is currently going on in the middle east—not only in Iraq—is cynically designed to frustrate those objectives and to unnerve and divide those throughout the world who promote them? Will he assure the House that the Government will hold their nerve and draw the right lesson from President Reagan's life: when the free democracies show sustained strength in the face of an international threat, they eventually win?

Jack Straw: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. It is clear, tragically, that there is a degree of insurgency—much of it fanned from outside Iraq, some from within—that is seeking to cause instability across the region without discrimination as to whether the people concerned supported or opposed the military intervention in Iraq. Saudi Arabia has taken the brunt of some of the attacks and I am sure that I speak for the whole House when I place on record our deep sadness at the news overnight of the killing of Simon Cumbers, a BBC cameraman whom I knew personally and respected. I am sure I speak for the whole House when I express our condolences to his family, his colleagues at the BBC and his friends, and in wishing Mr. Gardner the speediest of recoveries in the very difficult circumstances in which he finds himself.

Stuart Bell: The House will welcome the Foreign Secretary's confirmation that 11 of the 26 Government Departments are already in Iraqi hands and that the rest will be by the end of the month. Will he confirm that one of these Government Ministries is a Ministry of Human Rights, the only such Ministry in the entire middle east? Does he agree that the UN resolution will assist enormously in the 30 January passage of sovereignty, the 31 January elections in Iraq and the 31 December expiry of the mandate? Should not this House give its best wishes and say Godspeed to the United Nations in the hope that these things come about and that the insurgency and insurrection do not disrupt democracy for all the people of Iraq?

Jack Straw: I agree with my hon. Friend and I can confirm that there is a Ministry of Human Rights—the only one, I think, in the middle east—which sits alongside the Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of Justice to proselytise and establish human rights of a kind that Iraqis have never known.

Hywel Williams: Will the Government take heed of publicly stated opinion in Wales and Scotland in favour of a timetable for the withdrawal of British troops and their replacement by troops of useful countries, particularly from the Arab League?

Jack Straw: Everybody, particularly the new Government of Iraq, believes that it would be utterly and wildly irresponsible to seek to withdraw British troops now from Iraq. There is no possibility of the British or other multinational forces being replaced by troop contributions from Arab nations. When the hon. Gentleman proposes that we withdraw troops from Iraq immediately, he needs to be aware that he is proposing the creation of a security vacuum that would come as a comfort only to the terrorists and insurgents and would be opposed by the overwhelming majority of Iraqis. In a formal letter to the Security Council, the Prime Minister of Iraq, Dr. Alawi, spelled out, in terms, that he believes that the multinational force is essential to the building of stability, peace and democracy within Iraq.
	On the issue of a timetable, there is a timetable; it is the one before the Security Council, which makes it clear, in terms, that the mandate of the multinational force will end on 31 December next year unless it is determined by the Iraqi people to end it earlier.

Tony Lloyd: May I assure my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that many who opposed the war nevertheless accept that it would be irresponsible now to withdraw the multinational force, because that would lead to a power vacuum and almost certainly a civil war in a country that is already benighted with violence?
	May I press my right hon. Friend, nevertheless, on the legitimacy of the new Government? In the end, what really matters will be whether that Government can show the Iraqi people the reality that it is in control of the situation. Although, as he told the House a few moments ago, the letters lay down in some detail the nature of the relationship between the multinational force and Iraq's own security forces, there is a need for that to be further fleshed out because we cannot afford any future ambiguity in that relationship. It must be quite clear that future Iraqi Governments will be able to condition the circumstances in which a multinational force operates, to save us from the kind of disasters that we have seen in recent months.

Jack Straw: I am grateful for what my hon. Friend said at the start of his remarks. His view is widely shared, regardless of the original position that people took on the merits or otherwise of major military action.
	I have the advantage of being familiar with every line of the letters that have been sent to the Security Council, in a way that other Members of the House are not, and I invite my hon. Friend to read through the letter from Dr. Alawi to the Security Council, which sets out—fleshes out, to pick up my hon. Friend's phrase—in as much detail as is possible in advance, the way in which the relationship between the Iraqi forces and the multinational force should operate. As I said in answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), it is not possible to anticipate every conceivable circumstance, but it is possible to set up the framework for a partnership, have in mind what could go wrong—frankly, we have seen some things go wrong—and learn from those lessons. Also, overriding all the day-by-day arrangements should be the simple imperative fact that, if necessary, the Iraqi Government—the interim as well as the transitional Government—can decide to require the multinational force to withdraw altogether before 31 December next year. It is that fact alone, that they have a veto on the forces remaining, which will change the nature of the relationship, in addition to the detail of the letters.

John Maples: I am sure that the Foreign Secretary shares my deep concern at the damage that has been done to the Atlantic alliance during the past 18 months by the Iraq war. In negotiating the new United Nations Security Council resolution, will he emphasise strongly to his counterparts in France and Germany the importance of using it as an opportunity to start to rebuild the unity and cohesiveness of the alliance, and the fact that if they do not do that, but continue to milk the situation and its difficulties for short-term domestic political advantage, they are likely to turn a short-term problem of the alliance into a long-term one?

Jack Straw: It is the case that the transatlantic alliance has been under strain as a result of Iraq, as has the alliance within Europe—because this was not an argument between the United States and Europe but, fundamentally, an argument in Europe between those who took differing views. However, I have found in my dealings with my French, German and Spanish counterparts as well as with the Russian Federation, the Romanians and many others that there is real understanding about the need to come together. There is a sense of catharsis in the international community, and it was striking that President Chirac of France said yesterday in his address at the international ceremony to commemorate D-day:
	"France is keenly aware that the Atlantic Alliance, forged in adversity, remains, in the face of new threats, a fundamental element of our collective security."
	I could not put the view of the British Government and Parliament better than that. We are going to see a new spirit of co-operation and cohesion in the transatlantic alliance once we have got this resolution through.

Tam Dalyell: On 18–19 May, there was a tragic attack on the village of Makr al-Deeb, where some 42 victims, mostly women and children attending a wedding, were killed. Has there been any follow-up, who was responsible, and how in heaven's name can the Foreign Secretary praise Bremer, who made the catastrophic mistake of disbanding the Iraqi army and who was responsible for much of the difficulty in Falluja? Incidentally, that praise of Bremer is not in the script that has been given out to Members of the House, so it has obviously been added.

Jack Straw: The latter point is true—I added that part out of my head, so my hon. Friend can see that I write my own statements. On the more serious—the very serious—point that he raised about what happened to these poor souls who died in this village where there appeared to be a wedding party taking place, that was in the area of American operations. The American Administration are investigating it, and I believe that they are doing so very fully.

John Wilkinson: I associate myself with the tribute to the late Ronald Reagan, who set an example of courage and political leadership that we should not forget today.
	Can the Foreign Secretary explain a little more fully what he meant when he said that he hoped for cohesion in the Atlantic alliance once we have got this UN resolution through? Is not the important factor that it should be got through expeditiously and unitedly now? Is it not the case that Saddam Hussein was encouraged by the clear divisions among democratic countries in western Europe that ought to have known better? He was encouraged to hold out against UN resolutions that he ought to have obeyed long since, and we should not repeat or perpetuate that mistake. Should not all members of the Security Council approve the resolution expeditiously and promptly?

Jack Straw: I hope that it will be approved expeditiously, but I was being cautious. There is no doubt that Saddam was encouraged by divisions in the international community. I do not lay the blame on one side or the other, as that would not be fruitful at this stage. It is important now to recognise that everybody, regardless of the position that they took in respect of the military action, has a very clear interest in giving full support to Dr. Alawi and his interim Government and in seeing these processes through and ensuring, through the support of the multinational force and the expanding Iraqi security forces, that security is developed and then enhanced and maintained in Iraq.

Andrew MacKinlay: The Foreign Secretary will recall that the Iraq survey group reported to the Congress of the United States that it had discovered extensive UN sanctions busting not only by companies but with the collusion of Governments. Why does he feel unable to disclose the names of the perpetrators in public, to the House of Commons, rather than offering information in private to members of the Foreign Affairs Committee?
	What are the ground rules for private security companies, paid for by the British taxpayer, after 1 July? What laws will they be subject to, and what will be the chain of command and the rules of engagement?

Jack Straw: I have not felt able to make the information available about individuals and Governments under investigation because to do so could prejudice criminal prosecutions at a later date—that is a pretty standard reason why such information should be classified—but I have made it available in confidence to members of the Foreign Affairs Committee. My hon. Friend is himself a member of that Committee. The private—

Andrew Selous: A distinguished member.

Jack Straw: Indeed.
	The private security companies operating in Iraq will be subject to the laws of Iraq. In some respects, where international crimes are involved, they are also subject to the laws of the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend, as a distinguished member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, will recall that I published a Green Paper on the operation of such companies from the UK and whether we should introduce legislation. We came down against legislation because of the difficulties involved, but there is no doubt that in countries such as Iraq the operations of such companies, be they UK-based or based elsewhere, should be properly regulated, and that will fall to the Iraqi authorities.

Teddy Taylor: Does the Foreign Secretary think that it would help the new Administration and the allied forces in dealing with hostility if a more significant role were given to Muslim nations in the vicinity? In particular, does he believe that Iran could play a meaningful role in helping Iraq to introduce democracy, given that for many years Iran has had an elected President and Parliament and has introduced many liberal measures, resulting, for example, in more than half of Iran's university students being women? Could not Iran play a really meaningful role in helping the situation in Iraq?

Jack Straw: Each of Iraq's six neighbours, as well as other major countries in the region, has profound responsibilities in terms of helping with its stability and security. Iran—along with Turkey, its most populous neighbour—has a most important role, and I should like to put on record our appreciation of the constructive approach taken by the Iranian Government before Saddam fell and in the subsequent months. We look forward to Iran continuing to play that role, along with the other countries.

Jane Griffiths: May I welcome the commitment to UN-assisted elections taking place by next January? Can my right hon. Friend tell the House at this stage whether those elections will be subject to international monitoring by the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the Council of Europe and other bodies that normally undertake such duties?

Jack Straw: I am pretty certain that they will be, because they will be under UN auspices. I cannot be certain that the OSCE in particular will be involved, but I shall place more information about that in the record of the House.

Vincent Cable: Following the Foreign Secretary telling my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) that the oil is the property of Iraq, can he say whether the occupying powers have any residual responsibility for maintaining the production and transportation of oil, given that Iraq is now producing less oil than in the days of Saddam Hussein and sanctions?

Jack Straw: What the hon. Gentleman describes as residual responsibilities will arise principally under our responsibility within the multinational force to assist the Iraqis in maintaining security of oil supply—that is of paramount importance—and in respect of international contracts that have been signed by the coalition provisional authority, the Iraqi Government and various international companies to help to provide the oil. I should make it clear that flows of oil would be significantly higher were it not for the fact that terrorists have sought to attack the infrastructure and those working within the industry.

Alan Howarth: Although this issue understandably might not be in the forefront of my right hon. Friend's diplomatic thinking, will he—along with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport—do what he can to enable British archaeologists and other scholars to make the best possible contribution to the international effort to support Iraqis in conserving the heritage of ancient Mesopotamia and of the early centuries of Islam? That heritage is not only theirs but ours, so it has great symbolic importance in terms of reconciliation.

Jack Straw: As a matter of fact, that issue is in the forefront of my mind; indeed, I discussed it over the weekend with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. As my right hon. Friend says, the preservation of these archaeological sites is of huge importance to our understanding of our culture and history, as well as that of the middle east. We are concerned about reports of damage to some of these sites, and I should make it clear that they are being investigated urgently and thoroughly.

David Heathcoat-Amory: Given that we attacked Iraq not to change its Government but because we were told that it possessed weapons of mass destruction that were a threat to us and our allies, the continuing search for such weapons is obviously a matter of great importance. What arrangements have been made for continuing the search after the Iraq survey group report to which the Foreign Secretary referred, who will control the inspectors in the longer term and to whom will they report? Can the Foreign Secretary assure us that the search—although currently fruitless, it is nevertheless very important—will continue in all eventualities after sovereignty has been transferred?

Jack Straw: The mandate and the reporting chain for the Iraq survey group after 30 June remain something for discussion with the Iraqi interim Government. However, we expect the work of the survey group to continue.

George Foulkes: Would the Foreign Secretary risk speculating why some of the Jonahs, with honourable exceptions such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), are not prepared to acknowledge the remarkable political progress that is taking place, with a widely representative Government, including six women? Is it because that is more women than are on the Front Bench of either of the two main Opposition parties, or is it because they just cannot bring themselves to come round to the view that the coalition might actually be succeeding?

Jack Straw: It may be both, but I hope that if this process works out, in six to nine months' time we may—we have to be cautious about this—see a democratically elected Iraqi Government. That will contrast with what would have been if no action had been taken, because for sure, Saddam Hussein would have still been there, re-emboldened and re-empowered to wreak his havoc and his terror on not only his own country, but the rest of the region.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Given that even under Saddam Hussein there was a degree of self-determination for the Kurdish part of northern Iraq, will it be open to Dr. Alawi's interim Government to come up with a suggestion of a devolved or federated Government for the future of Iraq?

Jack Straw: The drafting of the constitution is, and will be, a matter for the Iraqi people as a whole, through the processes that will, I hope, be endorsed by the Security Council. How the Iraqis develop their internal devolution arrangements is entirely a matter for them, subject only to the overriding international requirement of the Security Council that the territorial integrity of Iraq be preserved.

Diane Abbott: On the question of security, the Foreign Secretary has said that the draft resolution and the letters set out the need to reach agreement on the fundamental security and policy issues, including policy on sensitive offensive operations, but he does not make clear what happens if the two parties do not reach agreement. If there is no agreement, will the British and American troops be able to overrule the sovereign Iraqi Government? How sovereign is a Government who do not have the last word on military operations within their borders?

Jack Straw: Not very sovereign—but that is not the case, because that Government will have the last word on military operations and, indeed, on the military presence, within its borders. Because of the way in which the arrangements have been developed, and the fact that the multinational force and the Iraqi Government have the same interest—that of establishing security and defeating terrorists—we do not anticipate that, in practice, there will be the kind of visceral disagreement that my hon. Friend describes. However, were there to be such disagreement, the last word would absolutely rest with the Iraqi Government, because under the terms of the draft resolution the Iraqi Government have the power not only to seek a revision of the mandate of the multinational force, but to seek to eject the multinational force altogether, in advance of the normal expiration of its mandate on 31 December next year.

Crispin Blunt: Does the Foreign Secretary acknowledge the disproportionate share of responsibility that the United Kingdom is seen by the rest of the world as having for events in Iraq, in the light of the importance of our political and diplomatic support for the United States? Given that, and given the revelations by Sir Christopher Meyer that the Prime Minister fails to make Britain's case in private, as well as in public, with the United States, what confidence can we have that Britain will exercise satisfactory influence over the United States after 1 July, when we have so far signally failed to help it to avoid some of the more obvious mistakes that it has made in the conduct of the occupation?

Jack Straw: We accept our responsibilities, because under the terms of the Security Council resolutions we were one of the two occupying powers under the coalition. We have always accepted our responsibilities and we have worked in a spirit of partnership with the United States and other Security Council partners.

Jon Owen Jones: Any Foreign Secretary's role is, inevitably, to sell various mixed messages, but can the Foreign Secretary help me, as one whose mental agility is not as great as his, to understand this: if we succeed, as we hope we shall, in setting up a democratic Government in Iraq, which will be a beacon of democracy in the region, why would it be in the interests of near-neighbouring countries to help to set up something that would, inevitably, help to undermine their own oppressive regimes? Given that some of the countries with the most oppressive regimes are those to which we are most sensitive, can the Foreign Secretary explain for me the overall strategy?

Jack Straw: Well, my hon. Friend will be familiar with what is coming as he and I attended similar schools in the days of President Reagan and before. We face in the middle east a transitional situation, to use that term precisely. The simple truth is that it is a parody to suggest that there would be an Iraqi democratic Government while all the surrounding Governments were dictatorships; that is simply not the case. A process of democratisation, of building representative government, has already taken place across the whole Arab region. Different countries in the region, such as Bahrain and other Gulf states, now have elections that are recognisably democratic by any standard. Jordan has recently had elections. We have arguments with Iran, but however else one might describe the Iranian situation, it is certainly not a monarchic autocracy. Among other countries, Egypt is in a state of transition, as, even, is Saudi Arabia; they are at different stages. I get no sense from my colleagues in Arab Governments that they are opposed to the democratisation of Iraq: they know that democracies have a much higher propensity to being peace-loving than authoritarian regimes ever have; and what they want, above all, after three decades in which they have been threatened by Iraq—some have had missiles fired at them and two countries have been invaded by Iraq—is a peaceful Iraq, which means a democratic Iraq.

Alistair Burt: Does the Foreign Secretary have any evidence to suggest that the good will that will surround 30 June will be used by the United States or ourselves to encourage serious progress on the middle east peace talks, given that the road map was so important to us all before the decision to take action against Iraq was announced?

Jack Straw: I very much hope that it is, although the hon. Gentleman will be aware of what has stalled progress on the middle east peace process, including, tragically, disagreements inside the Israeli Cabinet.

Paul Flynn: Those of us who believe that Britain's involvement in the Bush-led war was unnecessary and has cost us dearly through the loss of 70 lives and financially, none the less accept that our involvement imposes certain obligations to stay in Iraq until peace is assured. How does my right hon. Friend react to the statement made by Plaid Cymru this morning that its policy is now immediate withdrawal of troops? Should not that be dismissed as a piece of cheap, opportunist electioneering?

Jack Straw: Yes, it should, and I note that no Plaid Cymru representative is present in the House. It would be utterly irresponsible for British troops suddenly to withdraw. The people most at risk and who would suffer most would be the Iraqi people. Many more would be killed or injured as a result of peremptory withdrawal, and we shall not do it.

Jeremy Corbyn: On what date does the Foreign Secretary expect all British and American occupying forces to withdraw from Iraq? Have there been any discussions at any level regarding a permanent base in Iraq for regional purposes for either Britain or the United States after withdrawal of the occupying forces?

Jack Straw: I answered my hon. Friend's first question earlier, when I said that the mandate of the multinational force would terminate on 31 December 2005. I cannot anticipate—I simply cannot—whether a fully elected Government of Iraq will ask multinational forces, including the UK, to remain or in what numbers, except to say that if they were to do so, I would anticipate that the numbers would be many fewer than today. On my hon. Friend's second question, speaking for myself, I have seen no proposals for any kind of permanent base.

Harry Barnes: Is there not a distinction between legal authority, which should be transferred to Iraq on 30 June but may still have elements of the rubber stamp about it, and genuine political sovereignty, which will hopefully be achieved by 30 January next year? In achieving that, is not the role of the Iraqi independent electoral commission of considerable importance? What will be the United Nation's position in respect of achieving that goal? Will the UN be in sole control of the advice? That is a crucial role for the UN to play.

Jack Straw: My hon. Friend is right to say that overall legitimacy of the Government of Iraq will be much greater once they are properly elected. Everyone recognises the need for that, but we need a process for getting from where we were with the country under Saddam to where we want to be. The UN is playing a crucial role, particularly regarding the political process. The UN ran the arrangements—more than 1,400 candidates were involved—for the verification teams and the electoral commission, which will supervise the electoral process within Iraq. It is their call, not that of the coalition.

Chris Bryant: Every hon. Member in the House will be delighted to see fair and democratic elections taking place in Iraq in January next year, but fair and free elections will depend on the paraphernalia of civil society being in place. That means active trade unions, active political parties, independent media and, of course, an accurate electoral register. Does the Foreign Secretary anticipate Britain providing significant support for putting all those in place?

Jack Straw: We have already provided a good deal of support and we are happy to do so. Altogether, the British Government have provided £287 million worth of assistance to Iraq, covering all sorts of activities, including the sort of support that my hon. Friend mentioned.

Stephen McCabe: Does my right hon. Friend share my sense that we are now at a crossroads on this issue? Whatever the differences of the past, we can now all unite around the interests of the Iraqi people and the reconstruction of Iraq. Does that not mean that we all have to give support to the fledgling Government? Is it possible to do so while simultaneously using Iraq as part of the domestic political agenda—as just another football?

Jack Straw: I entirely share my hon. Friend's views. It is impossible to do both and we all have a responsibility to back the new Government. As my hon. Friend says, we are at a crossroads. What lies ahead, if we all get behind it, is something that we have all dreamt about, regardless of our view on the military action—a stable, democratic and peaceful Iraq, able to take its place within the international community.

Point of Order

Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I appeal to your theological erudition and ask whether "Jonah" is a proper parliamentary term? While you are thinking of the answer, Mr. Speaker, may I point out to my right hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) that, under the previous Saddam regime, there were, for all its faults, substantially more women in the Iraqi Parliament than in the House of Commons?

Mr. Speaker: May I tell the Father of the House that I leave my theology to the Speaker's Chaplain?

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Patents Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	In his foreword to the Government's innovation report at the end of last year, the Prime Minister stated:
	"The creativity and inventiveness of our people is our country's greatest asset and has under-pinned the UK's economic success".
	Unsurprisingly, I agree with him. That creativity and inventiveness was vital to the emergence of the UK as the first industrialised nation in the 19th century and it remains the key to maintaining the UK's position as one of the G8 leading industrial and economic powers in the 21st century.
	A mature economy like ours cannot compete with the newly emerging economies of the far east in terms of cost of labour or production. As my noble Friend the Minister for Science and Innovation reminded us in the other place, wages in China are 5 per cent. of what they are in the UK. In South Korea, which has an equivalent proportion of university graduates in the work force, the labour costs are about 50 per cent. of those here in the UK.
	Our future prosperity is dependent on how effective we are at using our knowledge, or in other words our intellectual capital, to compete in the ever more rapidly changing global marketplace. Creativity and inventiveness are essential if we are to deliver more high value, high quality sustainable jobs. Those factors are also important if we are to continue to reduce our environmental impact. Innovation will help to build further successful businesses and provide even better services and products for consumers.
	The most important assets for today's company are the knowledge and expertise of its work force. That knowledge and expertise represent the intellectual capital of the company. In exactly the same way that financial capital must be managed effectively to ensure the survival of the business, intellectual capital must be developed. That will ensure that a company can create new products and develop existing ones. In the 21st century economy, successful UK businesses are increasingly characterised by a high investment of intellectual capital. Such investment permits them to create high value knowledge-intensive products or services.
	It is no coincidence that the computer and office equipment industry, which showed average annual growth of 16 per cent. between 1991–2001, is also one of the highest employers of graduates. More than a quarter of the employees in companies in that industry have university or college degrees. Every time that a company applies new knowledge, or uses existing knowledge in a new way, to solve a business problem, it is making effective use of its intellectual capital. Protecting those unique knowledge-based solutions will be an increasingly important part of a company's business activity.
	Worldwide there has been a rapid rise in the use of patents, and other forms of intellectual property rights, by companies to protect their intellectual assets—the fruits of their intellectual capital. For example, applications for patents using the international route under the patent co-operation treaty have grown from just over 7,000 in 1985 to almost 104,000 in 2001, representing a nearly 15-fold increase in as many years.
	A patent provides a company with a legally enforceable means to prevent others from taking advantage, without its agreement, of the unique solutions, products or services that it has developed. The holder or owner of such a patent has the exclusive right, for up to a maximum period of 20 years, to recoup the investment he has made in developing the invention. The recovery of investment can take a number of forms. For example, the patent holder may grant a licence to a third party to use his invention, and be paid a licence fee by them for doing so. On the other hand, the patent holder could decide to use the patent as a means to prevent competitors from entering the market, while he establishes his business manufacturing the product, or performing the process, protected by the patent.
	I would be the first to admit that the whole area of patents is not one that I was especially acquainted with before being asked to present the Bill to the House. I am sure that many hon. Members are in a similar situation. The Government's innovation review has identified a similar lack of awareness about all aspects of intellectual property amongst UK businesses. However, after only a brief involvement with this topic, I have come to appreciate just how important it is for UK businesses to safeguard their intellectual assets.
	UK businesses have to compete in national, regional and global markets. As a result, they need a system that will deliver protection of their valuable intellectual property assets in all those markets. The Patents Act 1977 is key legislation in the area and, in its nearly 30-year existence, it has fulfilled two functions. First, it delivered the modernisation and reform of UK domestic patents law. Secondly, it allowed the UK to ratify a number of international patent agreements, which provide UK businesses with regional—that is to say, European—and global routes to patent protection for their inventions.
	Ratification of the 1973 European patent convention has allowed UK applicants to obtain patents that are effective in any combination of up to 28 European countries using a single one-stop procedure. That includes nearly all our EU partners, as well as the UK. That one-stop approach provides what is in effect a bundle of national patents, which provide enforceable protection in each country, once an official translation has been filed and the appropriate fee paid.
	Following an intergovernmental meeting in November 2000 of representatives from all the European states that had ratified the convention, a significant updating and streamlining of the 1973 European patent convention was agreed. All the states represented agreed to implement the changes into their domestic law as soon as possible.
	As a consequence, the first objective of the Bill is to amend the 1977 Act to give effect in UK law to the changes to the 1973 European patent convention agreed in 2000. Failure to ratify the revised European patent convention would mean that the UK would have to leave the European Patent Organisation, the body set up to provide a single one-stop procedure for obtaining European patents. The consequences of such a failure for UK businesses would be unacceptable.
	By bringing UK patent law into line with those revisions to an international treaty, we will ensure that UK businesses can continue to use that single one-stop procedure to obtain European patents valid in the UK and Europe. In 2002, UK businesses were the third largest users of the European patent system, both in terms of patents applied for and patents granted. On average, each patent provided protection in 10 countries. If we had to leave the system, UK businesses would experience increases in bureaucracy and costs. They would no longer be able to obtain patent protection that included the UK and all other European countries, using a single application and one set of fees.
	As one of the prime movers in setting up the European Patent Organisation, it is important that the UK is seen to take a leadership role in its ongoing improvement. In meeting our obligation to ratify the revised European patent convention, we can continue to influence future developments for the benefit of UK business.
	Clauses 1 to 5 deliver the required changes to the 1977 Act to honour our undertaking to implement the revised European patent convention. Clause 1 does two things. It makes it clear that a patent cannot be obtained for a method of medical treatment or diagnosis, such as a new surgical technique. It also gets rid of the need to use a rather specialised and complex form of language when obtaining patent protection for a new medical use of a substance that already has a known use in medicine. Patent protection will be easier to obtain if, for example, someone discovers that a substance that has already been patented for use as a painkiller can be used to treat heart disease.
	Clauses 2 to 4 cover various issues arising from the new procedure, referred to as central limitation, which will be possible under the revised European patent convention. The procedure offers a new way for the patent holder to limit or reduce the scope of protection given by the European patent, through a single process at the European Patent Office based in Munich. It will avoid the patent holder having to go through the expensive and time-consuming process of amending his European patent separately in each of the countries where it is in force.
	Clause 2 ensures that existing procedures for amending patents in the UK are aligned with the relevant procedures for doing so under the revised European patent convention. It does that by ensuring that the courts and the Patent Office take account of
	"any relevant principles applicable under the European Patent Convention".
	That will ensure that consistent standards are applied to the amendment of patents that are in force in the UK, regardless of the route chosen to make those amendments. The proposal was strongly supported by UK users of both the domestic and the European systems. Although it may restrict the current discretion of the courts or Patent Office on the issue, which is exercised to protect the public from patent holders who act in bad faith, clause 2 contains new measures to ensure that the public remain protected, but in a different way from that used at present.
	In proceedings before the courts or the UK Patent Office, a problem may be identified as to the scope of a European patent that is in force in the UK. Clauses 3 and 4 ensure that in such circumstances the holder of the patent can use the new limitation procedure to address the problem, thereby preserving the validity of his patent. He will be able to limit, or reduce, the scope of his European patent centrally, in one step, at the European Patent Office. That change will then be effective in all the countries in which the European patent is in force, including the UK.
	Schedule 1, which is introduced by clause 5, covers all the other changes to the 1977 Act necessary to meet our international obligations. It is worth noting that some of those changes involve updating the relationship between UK domestic patent law and the patent co-operation treaty, which provides a system for obtaining patent protection in up to 123 countries based on a single patent application.
	The second part of the Bill is concerned with amendments to the 1977 Act, which will improve the handling of disputes over patents and make the UK patents system more responsive to the needs of its customers. The Patent Office has jurisdiction to consider a wide range of disputes over patents.
	Issues that can be dealt with at the Patent Office include whether the patent is valid; in other words, does it meet the legal requirements for granting a patent? Is there confirmation, for example, that a certain act using process y or making product x does not fall within the scope of a particular patent and does not thereby constitute infringement of that patent? Has an employee who made an invention received just and fair compensation from his employer who holds the patent and has successfully exploited it? Are all the people listed as applicants on the patent entitled to be so?
	The Patent Office has built up a large reservoir of relevant experience in dealing with many of the issues that arise in patent disputes. We feel that this experience is not being exploited to its full potential. At the same time, we are aware that some users of the patent system are becoming increasingly concerned about the enforcement of their patent rights. This concern has focused on the cost and time taken for patent litigation. A report on a patents case in the Financial Times on 28 November 2003 brings this point home. The judge hearing the case was sharply critical that a four-day hearing had involved costs of £850,000.
	A consequence is that many companies, especially those in the small and medium-sized sector, which are so important in terms of creating jobs and are often the most forward thinking and innovative, may find it too difficult to support the financial and time requirements to enforce their patent rights. It is argued by some—although it is by no means a universally held view—that this leaves some companies unable to gain any real advantage from their inventions and acts as a disincentive to innovate.
	That has been an important driving force behind recent efforts to update the patents county court to provide a more flexible, user-friendly and less expensive forum for the litigation of patent disputes. Following extensive consultation and the involvement of users, a new streamlined procedure for handling such disputes has just been implemented under the able guidance of the patents county court judge, his honour, Judge Fysh. Early signs are encouraging that these efforts are starting to bear fruit, although patent litigation is still likely to involve a cost that small and medium-sized companies would find difficult to bear. As in any area, litigation should be embarked upon only after very careful consideration of the costs and alternatives.
	With those issues in mind, the Government have decided, in the Bill, to make a number of improvements to how patent disputes can be handled and to make greater use of the acknowledged expertise of the UK Patent Office. Clause 13 provides the framework for a new procedure whereby the Patent Office can provide, on request, an impartial opinion on certain issues that are likely to arise in a patent dispute. The two most common questions in such disputes are, first, whether a certain act, such as making product x or using process y would fall within the scope of the invention defined by the patent and so result in an infringement of that patent and, secondly, whether new evidence, such as an article published in a scientific journal, that was not considered at the time that the patent was applied for means that the patent should not have been granted—in other words, does that mean that the patent is not valid?
	A realistic assessment of the answers to such questions is essential for anyone considering or facing patent litigation. The earlier such an assessment is made the better, as the more helpful it can be in deciding the best course of action. A patent holder may ask himself, "Should I litigate? Should I seek a licence? Do I need to think about amending my patent? Should I seek a settlement?" Such opinions will not be legally binding on any party, but they will provide an affordable and prompt assessment generally based on a consideration of both sides of the argument—for instance, that of the potential infringer and of the patent holder. The details fleshing-out this framework will be laid down in secondary legislation, following consultation with users and stakeholders on how best to implement this new procedure. We believe that such a procedure, with its emphasis on balance, affordability and timeliness, will be useful to any party, but especially to those, such as small and medium-sized enterprises, that must decide how best to enforce their patent rights.
	Clauses 11 and 12 provide useful improvements in the area of infringement disputes. Following the spirit of the widely adopted reforms proposed by Lord Woolf some years ago, clause 12 would make changes to help a patent holder who is genuinely interested in settling a dispute. An approach to those whom he believes are carrying out the infringing act—for example, making or importing a product that is covered by the patent—will be easier. In situations where that person is not easy to identify, an approach could be made, under this clause, to a retailer supplying the suspected infringing goods or services in order to find out from where or whom he is obtaining his supply. If such an approach is made in the manner consistent with clause 12, the patent holder will not leave himself open to legal action from the retailer for making a groundless threat to launch infringement proceedings.
	As a result, provided that a patent holder behaves in an appropriate manner, he will find it easier to identify the source of material that he suspects is infringing his patent. Once that source is identified, the patent holder will be able to seek to negotiate a settlement of the dispute. If the manufacturer or importer cannot be discovered, after the patent holder has made "best endeavours" to do so, the patent holder will be able freely to approach the retailer and seek a settlement without fear of an action for groundless threats. Following successful infringement proceedings before the Patent Office, clause 11 makes it easier for the patent holder to enforce an award for damages.
	A group of improvements deals with disputes on issues other than the validity or infringement of a patent. The 1977 Act recognised for the first time that an employee should have certain rights to compensation in relation to inventions made by him that have been successfully developed by his employer. Analysis of responses to the public consultation that preceded the Bill concluded that there was no appetite for a major change. There is concern that the provisions do not serve a useful function, based mainly on the fact that there have been no successful claims for compensation to date from employees. However, the provisions have provided companies with a strong incentive to put in place their own arrangements to reward employees who make important contributions to their businesses. One such contribution is, of course, inventing a new product or process that the employer has patented and successfully exploited commercially.
	The modest change proposed in clause 10 will allow an employee who is seeking compensation to include benefits that flow from the invention itself, in addition to those benefits that flow specifically from the patent, when required to show that a patented invention is of outstanding benefit to the employer. That will provide the employee with a limited increase in the range of benefits he can suggest as evidence to meet the outstanding benefit threshold. The change does not upset the careful balance that has to be maintained between the rights of the employee on the one hand and those of the employer on the other.
	Clause 6 ensures that in disputes over who should be named as the applicant for a patent—usually referred to as entitlement proceedings—the unsuccessful party cannot reduce the patent protection available to the successful party by making details of the patent application public.
	The final change to disputes is set out in clause 14, which lays down the circumstances in which a party is required to provide a security for any costs that they may be required to pay at the end of the proceedings in the Patent Office. In that respect, it brings the law on patents into line with the more recent law on trade marks contained in the Trade Marks Act 1994, and will also ensure that the rules are consistent with those governing civil procedures in the courts.
	The second part of the Bill also provides for a group of changes to the 1977 Act to improve the service offered by the Patent Office to users in practical and useful ways. Clause 8 gives users more flexibility when paying the fees to renew their patents. The deadline for paying such a fee will be changed to the last day of the relevant month in which the fee is due. That has two advantages. First, it simplifies the record keeping required to manage a UK patent portfolio. Secondly, it brings the UK into line with practice in the other countries in the European patent system.
	If a patent is held or owned by more than one person, clause 9 makes clear the relationship between the co-owners in situations in which they have made no agreement or contract between themselves on how to act.
	Clause 7 limits the occasions when a UK resident who wishes to apply for the patent in another country must seek permission from the UK Patent Office to do so. In future, only the small proportion of UK residents who apply for a patent that relates to military technology or to an invention that raises national security or public safety concerns will need to ask for or seek such permission.If the application relates to any other subject, the applicant will be free to file it abroad. However, a criminal offence will still apply to a deliberate or reckless failure to seek permission, when required.
	Schedule 2 completes the group of changes and contains some more minor improvements. For example, it will be possible for the Patent Office to agree to a request from an inventor who wishes to keep his name and address confidential. It will also be easier for the Patent Office to change and update the application forms it uses, following feedback from customers. The schedule also deals with consequential amendments to the 1977 Act.
	Although hon. Members may find the topic of patents technical and difficult to follow, we must all appreciate the importance to the UK economy of useful and effective legislation in the sector. Although the Bill is, thankfully, small, it is important. It is essential if we are to fulfil the undertaking that the UK gave in November 2000 to ratify the revised European patent convention. In doing so, we will be making clear our commitment, as its third largest user, to the development of the European patent system. At the same time, the Bill provides important improvements to patent disputes. It will permit UK business to make best possible use of its most important asset—its intellectual capital and knowledge resources. I commend the Bill to the House.

James Arbuthnot: I largely agree with what the Minister just said and I hope that he does, because I would love to give him an exam on what he has just told us. There are some Bills that grab the attention of the British people and change the course of British history or even that of the world, but this is not one of them.

Ian Taylor: My right hon. Friend may be right in the narrow sense of the Bill, but he is certainly not right in the wider sense of the importance of patents, many of which have transformed British history.

James Arbuthnot: My hon. Friend is way ahead of me, as always. However, the Bill does not change the law of patents very much. It is one of those Bills that tidies things up a little and brings things into line; there is nothing radical or far-reaching about it. There is, however, one very important matter that we need to clear up from the beginning: is it "pa-tent" or "pay-tent"? The Minister covered the ground adequately by using both pronunciations, but we need to work out which it is to be.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I took advice on this matter. The pronunciation depends on which part of the country people come from, so I thought it important to use both, so that I did not upset or offend anybody.

James Arbuthnot: Wonderful—that is a Liberal Democrat remark really.

Paul Flynn: The accepted wisdom among the 1,000 people in my constituency who work in the Patent Office is to say the word with a short "a" because it takes a nanosecond less and, as they use the word several hundred times a day, they get home earlier for their tea.

James Arbuthnot: We have probably used up all the nanoseconds that we might have saved so far in the debate, so I had better move on.
	The Bill attempts to improve an area that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) said, is of huge importance to the British economy—that of innovation and invention. It is therefore an important Bill in spite of its generally uncontroversial nature. I should like to express my gratitude and appreciation for the work that has been done by my noble Friend Earl Attlee and many others in another place. The Bill comes to us in pretty good shape because of that. I also thank the Minister for encouraging his Bill team to brief me, and I thank the team for its useful and clear information. I thank, too, several other professionals and professional bodies who have helped me with this very technical Bill.
	The Minister explained that the Bill's purpose was to bring British law into line with the minor changes recently made to the European patent convention and to take the opportunity to make a few further minor changes to our patent law. I agree with his explanation.
	Before I go into the detail of the Bill, I should consider the backdrop against which it stands. Patents are one method of protecting our intellectual property. I am delighted to say that the first known cause of letters patent being granted in England was in 1449 to John of Utynam for a method of making stained glass windows in Eton college. The whole purpose of patents is the protection of new and improved products and processes that are capable of industrial application. They allow the patent holder, in return for making public his idea—a very important concept—the benefit of a monopoly of exploitation of that idea for up to 20 years. For that reason, they are crucial to what we regard as one of the unique selling points of the British economy: our high-tech, highly skilled businesses.
	Increasingly, businesses send offshore activities that can be done abroad equally well, less expensively and, I might add, with less Government interference and bureaucracy. If we are to compete we will have to do so in those areas where our skills and inventiveness make the difference, as the Minister said—I was listening to him. Patents are one way of protecting that inventiveness. The alternative is usually thought to be to keep the invention secret, but that deprives us of the knowledge of an invention that might spur further thought, inventiveness and innovation. Secrecy is antipathetic to the knowledge economy and bad for science.
	At the Lisbon summit in 2000, the European Council of Ministers rightly expressed the wish for the EU to become
	"the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world by 2010".
	That is why we need a thriving patent culture in this country. Unfortunately, we do not have one. In an article in the Financial Times of 11 September 2001, we learned that although patent applications in the UK increased by more than 2 per cent. between 2000 and 2001, small and medium-sized enterprises in the UK used patents less than similar companies in other countries. The article noted:
	"Bottom of the pile for patent enthusiasm was the UK, where only 23 per cent. had used the system. In contrast, more than half the Spanish SMEs were using patents."
	Britain is falling behind within Europe, but there is also a widespread lack of patent use in Europe as a whole compared with the USA and Japan. There seem to be several reasons for that, one of which is that, in the USA, it is possible to take out patents for processes that, in Europe, are not patentable—for example, business methods. Of course, that leads to more patents being taken out in the USA. The Opposition do not suggest that the UK should go down that road, however, as the USA has run into considerable difficulties.
	Other reasons why the USA and Japan have more patents than we do are more germane to the Bill. The first is costs. To obtain a patent in the USA costs about £10,000; in Japan, it costs about £16,000; but in Europe, it costs £50,000. Little wonder that Europe is falling behind in the use of the patent system. A large part of the European cost—about £12,600, according to the House of Commons Library—relates to translation, but renewal fees and agents' fees in Europe are far greater than in the USA or Japan. There seems to be a similar discrepancy in the time required to take out a patent: one inventor told me that whereas it takes three years to obtain a patent in the UK, the same process can sometimes be completed in much less than one year in the USA.
	The cost of translation is one of the greatest costs that fall on someone taking out a patent. In his winding-up speech, will the Minister say where we stand on that issue? In another place, Lord Sainsbury said:
	"The cost of translation of patents is stupendous and we need to have one language for them all."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 January 2004; Vol. 657, c. 42.]
	We agree with him, especially if that one language turns out to be the one most spoken in the developed world—English. Am I right in thinking that the prospect of reaching agreement on a single language has now receded? What has caused that breakdown and how are the negotiations to get back on track? What are the Government doing about a matter that causes inconvenience and expense not only to Britain, but to all the signatories to the European patent convention? How can Europe expect to compete with Asia and the Indian subcontinent if we cannot agree even on that?
	The system in the USA is three times quicker and five times cheaper than the one in Europe. A survey last month by the Swiss business school IMD showed that the most competitive economy in the world was that of the USA and that the UK had fallen a further three places to 22nd. Not only are we not meeting the goal of the Lisbon summit, we are going fast in the opposite direction. To see at least the symptoms of that decline, we need look no further than the way in which we run our patent system. Yet here we have a Bill that deals with none of that—it is a steady-as-we-go Bill, but we are not very steady at all. The costs and the time taken could be shaved a little, which we welcome, but we need to see a step change, and we are not seeing one.
	The Bill brings us into line with the revised European patent convention. Unless that happens, we cannot remain a signatory to the convention. That would be a bad thing for all manner of reasons that I shall not go into, but principally for the reason of commercial convenience. When an inventor takes out a patent in the European patent office, he takes out a bundle of national patents in different countries to protect his invention. If we ceased to be a signatory to the convention, the alternative would be for the inventor to take out lots of individual patents in those different countries or to forgo the protection that a patent would grant.
	It might be worth our while to consider why the European patent convention needed changing at all in 2000. The changes were both substantive and procedural, but will the Minister explain why they were necessary? We accept, of course, that they have now happened, but was there some glaring lacuna in the previous convention that was holding Europe back? What was the commercial demand for the changes that were made at Munich in November 2000? Might it be said that, while the Munich convention dealt with some of those issues, it left a great deal still to be dealt with, including the issues of a single language, computer programmes—currently the subject of a review—and biotechnology?
	If there is still much to be done, what is the prospect of a new patents Bill being introduced in the near future to put into effect any further changes to the European patent convention that might be needed? The Minister will be pleased to hear that it was agreed at the meeting in Munich in 2000 that there should be a meeting of patent Ministers every five years to review the convention. I know that the Minister will look forward to those meetings, as do I. It surely follows from that that we can now expect a patents Bill every five years, if only to allow this country to remain a signatory to the convention. Will the Minister confirm that he expects that to be the new pattern? After all, we have had only three Patents Acts since the 1940s.
	One important aspect of patents that is barely covered by the Bill is enforcement. The enforcement of patents is extremely expensive. It involves the examination of technical processes and the use of expensive litigators, and cases can—and often do—go on for years at a cost of millions. It has been suggested to me—I stress that I do not know whether it is true—that large companies frequently steal the technical know-how of small and medium-sized enterprises, relying on the relative poverty of the SMEs and the huge enforcement costs in time and money involved in fighting off any patent action. The Minister might suggest that there is no evidence for that, but will he tell us what surveys he has conducted to find out whether it is true? What evidence would he expect there to be? If SMEs are so daunted by the costs of enforcement that they simply do nothing, how does he propose to find evidence of that nothing?
	The patent reform group is a pressure group that has come into being to take action on this issue and it described one of the most important reasons for there being fewer patents granted in the UK. In the normal course of a patent action, the patent holder first tries to communicate with the alleged infringer, and those communications are largely ignored. The patent holder then begins an action. The alleged infringer responds that the patent has not been infringed and that it is anyway invalid. Then, if the patent holder is an SME, the alleged infringer applies for security for costs, which could amount to hundreds of thousands of pounds. The patent holder is then precluded from applying for exemplary damages because he is suing for breach of patent, not breach of copyright. Finally, to add insult to injury, according to the patent reform group, any damages achieved by a successful patent action are subject to tax, while the infringer can get tax relief on the legal costs of even an unsuccessful defence. That may be so and I will be interested to hear the Minister's reaction.
	One of the proposals of the patent reform group has been that a fighting fund should be set up to help small businesses finance infringement court cases. The Opposition are not sure whether such a fund could in practice do much more than scratch the surface of the problem. It could also be argued that such a fund, which would have to be paid for by all those who apply for patents, would be yet another burden on those applicants, who have enough to cope with already. Nevertheless, we recognise that for some businesses it is a problem of great seriousness and we intend to probe the Government's thinking in Committee. It is a huge issue and the Minister may tell us that this is too small a Bill and that it is too early to deal with so large a point, but let him take care not to fiddle while the patent system burns.
	The patent reform group dismisses the effectiveness of the new patent county court, which was introduced by the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. It is true that it has taken a while to find its feet. In another place, Lord Sainsbury said that it had had a slow start. In recent months, however, it has been working well and perhaps ought for the time being to be given the benefit of the doubt.
	The Government have taken the opportunity of this Bill to tidy up aspects of the law that consultations suggested required it. It seems to me that those tidying-up aspects are of considerably greater significance than those bringing UK law into line with the European patent convention.
	One important issue addressed in another place as a result of amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats and supported by the Conservatives was inventor confidentiality. Those working in bioscience have an understandable desire to keep their names secret, in view of the attacks that have sometimes been made on them, their families and their businesses. As a result, the Government amended the Bill, after initially refusing, as a result of the consultation, to do so, to allow the Patent Office to keep the inventor's name secret. But there is a new difficulty, which has been raised with me by the BioIndustry Association. It is concerned that, if inventors' names are kept confidential, the ability to search for, and challenge, UK patents will be restricted. How do the Government expect this to work? The BIA suggests that it would be preferable to withhold simply the inventor's home address. I do not know whether that is the right answer, but it may be.
	In practice, how do the Government expect this to work within the jurisdictions of the other signatories to the EPC? Clearly, there is little point in concealing something in the UK Patent Office if it is readily available elsewhere, perhaps even readily available on a website that is accessible from the UK. Do the other countries have similar problems with the safety of bioscientists? Does the Minister believe that they would be prepared to adapt their rules to allow a confidentiality that does not currently exist?
	On employee inventions, clause 10 amends the law to state that, when an employee has made an invention that belongs to the employer, and there is as a result an outstanding benefit to the employer, the employee shall be entitled to compensation. The amendment relates to the Government's view that that compensation should arise not just when the existence of the patent is of outstanding benefit to the employer but when the making of the invention—or a combination of the two—is of outstanding benefit to the employer. It may be that that is not a distinction of huge importance. In most cases, it probably will not be. Nevertheless, I am afraid that the Opposition simply do not understand it; at least I do not—my hon. Friend the Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) understands all about these things, so he will probably be able to explain it to me. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain what is the thinking behind this change and why it is necessary. The whole rationale behind the employee compensation provisions in the Patents Act 1977 seems questionable and this extension appears to require some justification that we have not heard so far.
	Let me present two cases to the Minister. In one, an employee has produced an invention for which the employer decides to apply for a patent. In the other, the employer decides not to apply for a patent. Am I not right in thinking that the compensation provisions apply in the first case but not in the second? If so, that strikes me as a silly anomaly. It may exist under current law, but it seems odd to extend the chances of its applying.
	Most good employers already provide for such compensation in their workplace schemes because it is commercially sensible to do so. That may be why there has never been a successful case relating to it. I put that the other way round from the way in which the Minister put it, just to prove once again that I was listening to what he said. It seems odd to us that there should be a role for the law to play in what ought to be a very subjective area of the relationship between employer and employee.
	Clause 13 introduces a new procedure, involving an opinion from the Patent Office on the validity or infringement of a patent. As the Minister explained, the new procedure will be non-binding. It has been the subject of much comment: indeed, in the Hen and Chicken in Froyle they talk of little else. Perhaps most people's reaction has been, "If it is not binding, who cares?" Some have said that the proposal is not as bad as it might have been, others that the Government had to think of something to help small businesses and this, unfortunately, was the best that they could come up with. It has been extensively damned with faint praise.
	We think that that is a little unkind. The aim behind the proposal, taken with the new provisions on threats of infringement proceedings, was to provide some mechanism through which people in dispute over a patent could engage in some form of negotiation rather than heading straight for the courts. It remains to be seen whether these provisions will achieve that.
	If the proposal constituted an excuse for the Government to fail to take proper and effective action to help small and medium-sized enterprises we would wish to hold them to account for that, but for the time being we are prepared to give the proposal the benefit of the doubt. Likewise, we are prepared to give the whole Bill the benefit of the doubt. I shall not be inviting my Conservative colleagues—either of them—to divide on it, because the thrust of the Bill, modest as it is, is largely benign. Our general approach will be to examine the Bill in Committee and improve it wherever possible. It is modest, however. It does not do much, although it may do a bit of good. It is workmanlike and, no doubt, useful but if I were the Minister, I would want a better epitaph than that.

Paul Flynn: It is a rare privilege for us parliamentarians to discuss a patents Bill. As they appear only every 25 years or so, an MP can experience a whole parliamentary career without having such an opportunity. While there will not be dancing in the streets of Newport, I believe that the whole city will be suffused with a pleasant glow at the news that the Bill has been given a Second Reading.
	The Minister was magnanimous in his conclusions, but a little curmudgeonly in his opening remarks. He failed to see the romance of the whole business of patents, which stirs such passions in the inventor class. All human life is in the patents business. Fortunes are made, fortunes are lost, fortunes are missed out on. Humankind's genius and creativity are expressed at their most prolific and productive. The nations of the United Kingdom are especially adept at being innovative, but unfortunately we have not been so good at applying that.
	A rather sad story, brought to my attention by Jeremy Philpott of the Patent Office, illustrates the near-tragedies of the patent business. It involved a man called Bill Frost of Tenby, who applied for a patent for a flying machine in 1894. He went to his death swearing blind that his design for an inflatable dirigible with wings had flown, but there was no record of it. If it were true, he would have beaten the Wright brothers, who flew in 1903. If we had had a Patent Office in Newport—put there by a benign, sensible and far-sighted Labour Government of the time—a Welshman might have been recorded in 1894 as the first person to make a powered flight. These dramas take place repeatedly on the journey down the M4 to Newport, with people having similar ideas simultaneously. There is often a rush to get the initial application in first.
	We need a patent policy that is liberated and makes the most of our innovations. Patent protection is one of the cornerstones of our economy. The Bill is modest, but adds zest and a reviving stimulus to the situation described by the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), whose remarks on the various patents provided a snapshot of what is happening. Sadly, there has always been a large difference between the number of patents registered in the UK and in Japan and the United States. That says more about our lack of ability to use the applications of science in a practical form than about the ability of our inventors to produce the goods and genuine innovations.
	I rejoice in the fact that the Patent Office is situated in Newport, West. It was located there in 1991 and it has a 1,000-strong work force. It deals with three areas: intellectual property; processing patents and trademarks; and design applications. Of the 1,000 employees, 208 are patent examiners, whose job is to process the 30,000 applications every year for inventions as diverse as a robot lawnmower to a ladder for helping trapped spiders out of the bath. The patent examiners are the intellectual aristocrats of the world of knowledge. In 1991, they all moved from south-east England to Newport, some very reluctantly. They are highly skilled and are the world experts in sometimes very narrow fields. They are people of great ability who are suitably rewarded for it.
	It is encouraging that a number of local people have been recruited over the years and have developed the necessary skills. Some of my constituents are now patent examiners. The office has drawn its work force from a wide area and science graduates come from all over the UK, bringing their valuable expertise. That ensures that the Patent Office continues to be a habitat that blends rigorous scholarship with intellectual stimulation. It has been a huge success.
	The world is very little understood, as hon. Members have pointed out, but it defines and chronicles all the ferment of activity and creativity in our country—all the original ideas, new notions, brainwaves and certain improvements and refinements to existing patents that are shaped into practical inventions and registered.

David Taylor: I was pleased to hear that one division of the Patent Office in Newport deals with intellectual property. Does my hon. Friend agree that if we do as the Bill suggests and comply with the revised European patent convention, there is a risk that software patents will become the rule in Europe, as they are in Japan and the United States? There are real risks to that, in that such matters are not the subject of intellectual creation; they are just different ways of doing things and obvious ways of using new technology. If we go down that path, we will chill innovation, damage our competitiveness and open programmers and the companies that employ them to legal challenge at every turn. To declare an interest, I speak as a former software developer.

Paul Flynn: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the harm that has been done by the tyranny of one or two large companies in monopolising ideas and certain practices to the detriment of the worldwide development of patents and other advances in that field. We certainly do not want to see any change that would put such an obstacle in the way of those developments. I am sure that my hon. Friend will understand what is being said on that.
	In a typical year, the Patent Office receives 30,000 patent applications and it is fascinating to look back into the past and see that in 1897 the number of applications was exactly the same. At that time, however, the dominant subject of patent applications was improvements to bicycles. The office now deals with telecommunications, nanotechnology and biotechnology, fields in which we all find great excitement. Nanotechnology, in particular, is the sort of field that will excite the wonder of our grandchildren.
	The Government deserve congratulations on providing constructive legislation designed to encourage and assist parties to settle disputes over patent rights. I feel sure that small and medium-sized enterprises, in particular, will find that part of the Bill helpful. The work of small and medium-sized enterprises has been referred to, and we all recognise that they are the core of the economy, which will keep the economy healthy and provide the seedcorn for bigger enterprises. The Bill makes useful provision in that regard, and it is right to recognise that it is the nature of the SMEs themselves that has been inhibiting, rather than the activity of the patent business. Among the useful provisions are ones that will sharpen industry's incentive to innovate through an effective, flexible and up-to-date regime for patenting.
	I have seen the Patent Office develop, and one of its characteristics is that when it first moved to Newport, it used a filing system that looked archaic, even in '91. It was quite rightly reluctant to move straight into a high-tech, sophisticated system, which many other Government offices have done disastrously. Having a passport office in the town, we are reminded of the problems that were caused there. The Patent Office moved with great caution from its old filing system to one that depended entirely on software, with all its problems.

David Taylor: Can my hon. Friend reassure the House that, as far as he is aware, future modernisation and use of technology in the Newport Patent Office will not incorporate the damaging concept of the private finance initiative and will not use the disastrous firm Capita?

Paul Flynn: I would like to, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will give my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) that reassurance.
	Another interesting point is that the Patent Office is one of the few Government agencies or offices that has actually done some insourcing, rather than outsourcing. I should like to see it do a great deal more because in a number of fields, work is being done very expensively by patent agents and trade mark agents, at great cost to British industry. That work could be taken in-house by the Patent Office, and done more efficiently and at less cost to the customers. However, it has not gone that way because of Treasury rules. If we were looking to turn the Patent Office into an institution that was not rigidly tied in to Treasury rules but had a freedom to innovate and compete in the private sector, there could be major insourcing, as it took in those jobs. Already, a small number of Newport jobs that were outsourced have been drawn back in again.

Gerry Sutcliffe: While my hon. Friend is rightly complimenting the Patent Office, he may note that it has Investors in People accreditation and has achieved the international charter mark standards that it sought. It is certainly one of the best patent offices in the world.

Paul Flynn: Indeed. I was complimenting it on its caution in not rushing headlong into new technology in 1991, despite the attractions. It took a measured pace, while other patent offices ran into serious difficulties after plunging into the bewildering world of high tech.
	We all want to see continued innovation. In my constituency, as in many others, sunset industries that resisted change have not developed, and we have a task in competing with the emerging economies in the far east. Industries that are more likely to succeed in the global marketplace are those that depend on and invest heavily in that mysterious, intangible, elusive product called knowledge. I understand that the European patent system is not a European Union system, but it is none the less a crucial European framework that benefits the UK's innovative businesses.
	By delivering full compliance with the European patent system, I hope that the Bill will allow the UK to continue to be a top league player in future developments of that system. That is essential if we are to secure the most beneficial outcome for UK businesses. That is the core of the prosperity that is growing in my constituency, which, like many others, has gone through the trauma of losing sunset industries, which have been replaced by the dawning industries of high tech that have moved in.
	The Bill's enforcement provisions will be especially helpful in surmounting the problems, but equally welcome are the modernisation and updating of patents legislation to respond to customer needs. The service is in intimate daily contact with its various customers. We think of it as dealing with individual inventors, but these days it often deals with huge corporations, often registering patents by the dozen. I understand that the Bill will allow the Patent Office to adapt its services the more easily to meet its customers' requirements. It already runs highly efficient and responsible services with full regard to its stakeholders' needs, but I have every confidence that its operations will benefit further from the regulatory provisions. This is a most welcome deregulatory measure, and one would have expected a warmer welcome for it from the Opposition.
	I fully agree with the Minister's sentiments about innovation generally. He is right to tell us of the undesirable effect if the knowledge arising from innovation and creativity is not properly protected. It is tremendously important to have patent protection, so that businesses have the incentive to make the necessary investment in finding new and improved products and processes for the benefit of all.
	The Bill will permit the Patent Office to provide non-binding options on whether certain activities or products infringe a patent and/or whether certain information indicates the lack of validity of a patent. I certainly hope that such opinions can form the basis for negotiated settlements of disputes. That may take a change in the current culture, where litigation is seen as a quick fix for disputes—sadly, it is rarely that: in this complex area, apart from the translators, whom we heard about, the only people who benefit in the long term from long court actions are the lawyers. The Patent Office is dedicated to delivering high standards in all its services, but I have no doubt that it will use its vast experience to deliver first-class opinions on questions that can be so important to the inexpensive resolution of disputes. No one else is in the position to give such advice, and it seems rational to tap into that expertise in order to offer the customer a low-cost, specialist service of this type.
	The Bill will also adjust the impact of provisions applying to unjustified threats of patent infringement. I listened to what the Minister said on this issue and I support his sentiment. It is crucial that the disincentive to settling disputes that the existing provision certainly creates be removed, and it is clear that we should support changes that encourage negotiation and lead to the early settlement of disputes. If we can do that while retaining the appropriate and necessary safeguards against the threat of litigation from retailers, the Bill will indeed provide a wormhole through which the interminable wasted space of litigation can be penetrated.
	The Patent Office is an outstanding Executive agency that has done some excellent work, and I am delighted that the Bill will proceed through the House today without opposition—

Eric Forth: How do you know?

Paul Flynn: Well, one hopes that it will proceed with the support of the whole House.
	The Patent Office's relocation to Newport was recently highlighted in the Lyons report as the ideal example of a relocation of company based in the south-east of England, and there are plans to relocate other civil service jobs outside the overheated south-east. As the Welsh proverb states:
	"Hawdd cynnau tân arhen aelwyd",
	which means, "It is easy to kindle a fire on an old hearth." The Office for National Statistics, the UK Passport Service and most recently the Patent Office have all found a very suitable habitat for their staff in Newport. The Patent Office immediately saved very large sums in rent, and its turnover was reduced to about one tenth of the original figure. Virtually all the staff who moved to south Wales have stayed there; indeed, many of those who are now retired have stayed in the area. It has been a huge success story.

Gerry Sutcliffe: My hon. Friend is right to point to the excellent work done by the excellent staff of the Patent Office in Newport, but, as he knows, Companies House, which is based in Cardiff, is another example of a DTI agency that works well in Wales.

Paul Flynn: Indeed. We enjoy this great success in Newport itself and in "Newport far west"—the Minister will not realise that that is how we refer to Cardiff—where Companies House is situated

Ian Taylor: I cannot restrain myself from pointing out that I had not realised that the previous Conservative Government had given such a blessing to Newport, West. Having visited the Patent Office when I was a Minister, I am delighted to see that things have worked out so well for the hon. Gentleman.

Paul Flynn: Yes, they have. I should point out that the previous Labour Government provided for other high technology relocations, such as the former British technological board. This is an ongoing process, and despite a certain political antagonism against the city, our magnetic attraction is such that it overcomes any such objections. I am very happy to thank Administrations of both colours for wisely relocating such agencies to Newport, West.
	The Patent Office has achieved its fourth successive charter mark, and in order to maintain this award it has developed the dynamic approach that I mentioned. That approach not only builds on existing services; it also uses technology to offer new and more targeted services, including widening the consultation base to enable it offer a more personalised service.
	Another example of achievement is the Patent Office's accreditation to the ISO 9001:2000. That accolade constitutes international recognition as a centre of excellence, and recognition of its patenting processes and the way in which it manages its business. Such recognition reflects the quality of services that the Patent Office is able to provide for customers, the development of its staff, and its reputation and influence. I am fortunate to have such an organisation in my constituency, and I have every confidence that it will meet the challenge of delivering the new opinions provided for in clause 13 to a very high standard. It also has a remarkably good record of dealing with a wide range of staff, including some who have problems with mobility, and some who have not attained high qualifications. It has been a good servant of the town, and a model employer.
	Britain has a patent tradition that stretches over six centuries, and the Bill should set the framework for that tradition to continue. As we have already heard from the Minister, its origins can be traced back to the 15th century, when the Crown started making specific grants of privilege to manufacturers and traders. The Patent Office came into being on 1 October 1852, so it celebrated its 150th anniversary in 2002. However, the forward-looking office based in the city of Newport is not recognisable from the times of Dickens, when the offices were full of quill pens and mid-19th century gloom. We would not expect to find in Newport the Lord Chancellor's Purse Bearer, the Deputy Chaff-Wax or any of the other Victorian characters who at one time ran our patent system.
	The current Act has been in existence for more than 25 years, but things have by no means stood still since 1977. Although the Act has been modified many times by minor legislative changes, the patents rules are still the means by which many of the formal requirements and other details are set out. The current rules date from 1995—although those too, have been amended several times.
	The only aspect of the patent system that seems to have remained constant throughout the past six centuries is the need for legislative change, with pressure for reform and improvement often coming from users of the system, who have been able to see its flaws all too clearly. The need for continuous reform is ever present, and the Bill follows in the worthy footsteps of many earlier legislative initiatives.Perhaps when it achieves Royal Assent, the patent system will finally, 400 years after the Statute of Monopolies of 1623, be a model of perfection—but possibly not. Perhaps in 20 years' time other MPs will come along to improve the system further.
	Finally, in a spirit of rejoicing, I would like to quote a large advert that appeared last month in the glossy bits of all the Sunday newspapers, placed by a leading car manufacturer, Honda, which recognised the importance of intellectual property by focusing on the Patent Office. It drove home its slogan as follows:
	"There is a place where dreamers go. Where crazy flights of fancy are valued above all else. Where the only good idea is an idea that's new born. Where dreams can become real. It's called The Patent Office, Concept House, the City of Newport — M4, junction 28, first roundabout, and fourth exit. Do you believe in the power of dreams?"
	That dream has become a vibrant living reality for the city of Newport, and the Bill will give it new strength, order and opportunity.

Brian Cotter: In introducing the Bill, the Minister rightly pointed out that the future strength of the UK economy increasingly depends on our ability to exploit our knowledge resources and promote innovation. Patently, it has also been established that we can pronounce "patent" whichever way we like. I am glad of that, in case I make a mistake; both sides of the House seem to have agreed that if I do, it will not be seen as such.
	Patents are an important part of safeguarding the home-grown innovation from which we want UK businesses to benefit. The Bill is therefore welcome for its first aim—to update UK laws and ensure compliance with revised international agreements, so that British businesses can continue to exploit their new products throughout the globe.
	However, in terms of the Bill's second objective, the proposed legislation seems to fall far short of achieving the Government's desired aim. The right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) made some references to that.
	In the Department of Trade and Industry press release announcing the Bill on 16 January, the Minister for Science and Innovation, Lord Sainsbury, said that the Bill's proposals would provide a more supportive framework, particularly for small businesses, to enforce patent rights and ensure that UK patent law continued to underpin and promote innovation. Yet that is exactly what the Bill does not do. Instead, it merely tinkers around the edges of the law, failing to address the fundamental point that the current patent system is stacked wholly against UK small firms.
	In his report "Making Patents Useful to Small Firms", Professor William Kingston of Trinity college, Dublin, considered the value of the current patent system to small and medium-sized enterprises across the European Union, noting that in quite a number of cases use of the patent system left SMEs worse off than they would have been if it had not existed. He concluded that
	"for every instance where it did provide benefit, there seemed to be several where it caused actual harm."
	Professor Kingston further identified three specific groups of individuals and businesses that use the current patent system. By examining each group in turn, it is easy to highlight that system's failings.
	The smallest group of patent applications identified by Professor Kingston are those of individuals and small businesses that are actually successful in securing a patent and going on to make money out of it. That group is by far the minority.
	The second, largest, group is made up of those who make a patent application for reasons of vanity. They are mainly individuals who like the romantic idea of being an inventor or of being considered the next Einstein. Unsurprisingly, most such patents are never exploited commercially, often because they are unexploitable. None the less, that has not prevented the UK Patent Office from endorsing some of the more dubious inventions, and that raises some concern about how it operates.
	The Minister spoke earlier about depending on the clear experience of the Patent Office in the past. Yet, in the 1960s and 1970s, a retired patent officer examiner, Arthur Pedrick, attempted to show how absurd the patent system was by taking out patents on a range of bizarre inventions. Shockingly, the Patent Office endorsed 162 of his madcap schemes, including UK patent number 1047735, which was his plan to get snowballs of 10 ft in diameter to run down mountains in Antarctica, attaining speeds of about 500 mph, then being piped to Australia where they could be used to solve the world's famine problems.
	I could rest my case, but I will not. Patent number 1426698 was a plan for an automatic defence deterrent to solve the cold war problem. The United Nations would place nuclear bombs on three earth-orbiting satellites. If those satellites detected that one of the superpowers had been nuked, the bombs would automatically drop on Washington, Moscow and Peking, thus ensuring mutual destruction of all three. I am glad to see that London was not included; perhaps the gentleman lived here.
	Those are examples of the folly of the Patent Office, if I may say so in the presence of the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn). It has wasted a lot of time by taking on such things. I must not leave out Mr. Pedrick's vision of a chromatically selective cat flap, which would restrict entry to his home to just his ginger cat, not black, white or grey cats, by somehow barring those with differently coloured fur.

Ian Taylor: I am fascinated by all of this, but I wonder whether it is the duty of the Patent Office to decide whether or not an applicant is mad. If the Patent Office takes the fee, it is making a profit, which could benefit the constituents of Newport, West. If someone is mad enough to apply to patent such inventions, surely it is not the job of the Patent Office to reject them.

Brian Cotter: The hon. Gentleman makes a useful point so far as constituents are concerned, but there should be a certain level of examination of patents. The right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire said from a sedentary position that the idea of doors with the ability to detect colours was valuable, so I wonder whether, when the Conservative party opens its new offices in Victoria street, the door could detect whether the people coming through it were light blue, dark blue or not blue at all. The door might be slammed in certain people's faces, but I shall not go any further on that matter.

Paul Flynn: Fascinated as we are by the hon. Gentleman's examples—I welcome them—I believe that the Patent Office can take decisions only on whether the patent applied for is original and not covered by other existing patents. It cannot make a judgment on practicality.

Brian Cotter: As the hon. Gentleman says, examples are important and I could provide more, but I still believe that it is a bizarre way for an organisation to operate. All sorts of suggestions could clog up the system. I could think of two or three as I stand in my place, but I would not want to try your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by rehearsing them now.
	Before we go any further, it does not seem unfair to conclude that the current patents system can sometimes reach the point of being somewhat ridiculous—far from the image of an official department, spearheading the development of the latest cutting-edge technology.
	The failings of the current patents system are no laughing matter when we turn to the last group of users identified by Professor Kingston. The last group is made up of individuals and small businesses that have been granted a patent for good and workable inventions. However, they are often prevented from enforcing their patents because they lack the resources to challenge larger companies that determinedly seek to infringe them. Just obtaining a patent in the first place can be costly enough for a small business, as the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire mentioned. Official estimates suggest that it can cost as much as €50,000 to obtain a patent in the EU.
	A small firm would first have to pay the Patent Office hundreds of pounds to endorse the invention. As already mentioned, one of the big issues is the length of time that it takes to establish a patent, which can be all of three years. If a small firm is successful in gaining a patent, it will probably have to pay a patent lawyer thousands to draft a patent for it professionally and to translate it into all of the relevant European languages. Then, after all that money has been spent protecting a small firm's product, a larger company often comes along to exploit the idea illegitimately. These are not flights of fancy; I am referring to the work carried out by Professor Kingston.
	The small firm then has the option of issuing a licence to the larger company or politely requesting that licence fees are paid, following the infringement of its idea. At best, the large firm will usually ignore such a request. At worst, it will issue a lawsuit, questioning the validity of the patent, as, the inventor of the "anyway-up" children's drinking cup was dismayed to learn. If the small business loses such a case, it may be liable to pay the other side's costs. Unsurprisingly, most small businesses abandon their attempts to defend their patents in court.
	One disgruntled small business owner recently summed up the frustration surrounding the current system, by saying that the Patent Office
	"will grant you a patent at enormous expense, if you are clever enough to be able to beat the whole of the rest of the world technically. But if someone steals your patent, then the PO will do . . . absolutely nothing. If someone steals your car, then you call the police"—
	there is no guarantee that they will get it back for you, but they try and they exist to do something about it—but,
	"if someone steals your invention, then you have to go to the court to recover it. If you do, then the Inland Revenue will tax the patent holder his winnings and give tax relief to the thief. Patents do not do 'what it says on the box' and are essentially fraudulently sold to UK industry."
	The Minister said earlier—it is on the record, I am sure—that patents were designed to give a 20-year monopoly to firms. I have to inform him that that is not the case. There have been previous attempts to reduce costly litigation and streamline the legal process to make it more accessible to small businesses, but many small firms claim that so far those have had little effect.
	The patent county court was established in 1988 to provide a cheaper and more friendly legal recourse for small businesses to defend their patents. Yet in November 2003, the patent county court judge, Justice Laddie, complained that the case on which he was working, which dealt with a relatively simple issue, had been
	"allowed to grow into a four day trial costing over £850,000".
	He concluded:
	"That cannot be an appropriate way of conducting litigation".
	I know that my noble Friend Lord Razzall was given an assurance that the work of the patent county court would be kept under review, but I would again press the Government to ensure that they return to look again at the problem of enforcement, if the changes outlined in the Bill do not have the desired effect of helping to reduce legal costs for small and medium-sized enterprises. That is what I would maintain. It is imperative because, although the Government have recognised that costly litigation makes it impossible for small businesses to enforce their patent rights, some people believe that the system in the Bill will be of little more use to small firms than previous initiatives.
	The Government claim that they will make it easier for firms to enforce their patent rights under clause 13, which provides a new procedure under which the Patent Office would issue, on request, an opinion on certain matters that might be relevant to a patent dispute. The system would allow a patent holder to bring arguments before the Patent Office rather than the courts, the idea being that it could obviate the need for costly litigation in settling an infringement dispute between companies. However, it could be that in offering a non-binding opinion, the Government are offering a solution with no teeth.
	Even if the small business owner chose to take advantage of the process and the Patent Office found in its favour, all that the business would have is a piece of paper suggesting that its larger rival ought to pay licence fees. A big company could be just as likely to refuse to pay up and go to court anyway, particularly given that the courts are under no obligation to take the view of an arbitrator on board. According to Noel Akers, partner at the intellectual property law firm, Howrey, Simon Arnold and White,
	"the non-binding opinion is not going to stop a large company that says, 'we've got deeper pockets, we can take the other side as far as we need to break them'."
	In addition, concern has been raised that the Patent Office will have neither the time nor the expertise to make judgment on cases of alleged infringement, particularly as it seems that it is so often busy endorsing madcap inventions such as the cat flap idea. Explaining its rationale for contracting out a number of patent examinations to Denmark back in March 2002, the Patent Office admitted that the decision was
	"part of wider efforts to deal with the rising input of patent work, which has so far not been matched by our ability to recruit and retain examining staff."
	I am prepared for the Minister to say that that was the position in March 2002 and that it has subsequently changed, but I hope that he can give me that reassurance on a firm basis of fact.
	How can a patent holder be confident that the Patent Office will have the resources to come to measured judgments in cases of infringement? As the patent reform group pointed out, in order to reach a reasoned judgment as to whether a patent has been infringed, the Patent Office will need the co-operation of the infringer. How likely is it that a defendant will readily hand over the product or technology for examination? What additional powers will the Patent Office have to ensure that an alleged infringer provides all the relevant material to the case? Why have the Government rejected the idea of binding and technical arbitration—that has teeth and is based on technical assessment—to settle infringement disputes and make it easier for small businesses to protect their patents? What evidence do the Government have for their proposal that the use of a non-binding opinion would provide a practical alternative to costly litigation for SMEs, when the procedure is already available from the World Intellectual Property Office—WIPO—but is rarely taken up because of its non-binding nature?
	Ministers say that they want to help SMEs enforce their patent rights, but some small businesses claim that they have not been given the tools to do so. This week, the Patent Office will spend £250,000 launching the "Intellectual Property BOOM!"—an initiative to raise businesses' awareness of intellectual property rights. However, if the procedures in place are not sufficiently robust and relevant, the expenditure of that money is probably not justified.
	I would also like more explanation from the Minister of why the Bill has been brought forward before the patent enforcement project has been completed. The project was due to report at the end of November, but that was moved to the end of March, then delayed until the end of April and now it will not report until the summer. The project was part of assessing the need for a Patents Bill. Even when it reports in the summer, a long consultation process will be necessary, possibly lasting a further three years. I suggest that the Minister should be concerned about that prospect.
	Following publication of the DTI's innovation report last December, the Government concluded that the Patent Office should
	"conduct a feasibility study of a proposed new institutional arrangement which would help SMEs protect their intellectual property."
	The initiative is looking at the possibility of establishing a fighting fund to help SMEs finance legal action when their patents have been infringed. Why has the Bill been brought forward before the conclusions of that study are published in the summer, because it will be an important contribution to the efforts to help small firms?
	I am aware of the announcement made by Lord Sainsbury in the other place in response to concerns raised by my noble Friend Lord Razzall about the system that the Government have chosen to help small firms enforce their patent rights. Nevertheless, it would be helpful for the Minister to repeat those arguments today, as some firms—such as those involved in the patent reform group—do not have confidence in the proposed system. A further comment by the Minister would help us to see why the Government have chosen to adopt that system.
	It was said at the beginning of the debate that the Bill was nothing to be concerned about, but it does raise issues of great concern. For example, clause 1 would insert a new section 4A into the Patents Act 1977 to bring us into line with the European patent convention. According to the Government on Second Reading in the other place, clause 1 would make it clear that any method of medical treatment, such as a new surgical technique, cannot be patented, and that is welcome. It also provides a less complicated method of obtaining protection when a new use is found for a medically active substance that has a known use or uses. Those provisions mean that scientific discoveries that are for the public good or part of human knowledge cannot be tied up by patents to make them unavailable, in the same way that inventions can. That is also to be welcomed.
	However, the patenting of substances or compositions using methods of treatment or diagnosis of human or animal bodies is allowed. That is an area for concern. Do current provisions provide sufficient protection against the potential monopolising of certain benefits that might stem from the human genome project? A report published by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics in July 2002 concluded that research into AIDS, cancer and malaria is being held up because patents on human genes are granted too readily to pharmaceutical companies. Although patents covering DNA sequences are often justified to reward innovative science, some experts feel that too many restrict research.
	It is, therefore, possible that the patents system is not fulfilling its key system of encouraging developments that benefit the public. The Nuffield report expressed fears that companies were being granted exclusive rights over the use of genes in diagnosis, research and treatment, thus preventing other scientists from working on other aspects of the gene. Can the Minister clarify how the amended legislation will ensure that the tests are more rigorously applied to the granting of patents involving DNA sequences, so that knowledge and substances are not tied up by the granting of broad patents?
	I hope that the Minister can also clarify the situation on the changes that will update section 22 of the 1977 Act. Section 22 concerns information in patent applications that might be prejudicial to the defence of the realm or the safety of the public. Schedule 2 to the Bill proposes to substitute the term "defence of the realm" with the phrase "national security". According to the Bill's explanatory notes, that update is designed so that
	"the comptroller can make directions in any circumstance where there is a need to protect the national security interests of the United Kingdom."
	Given that the phrase "national security" is much wider ranging than the term "defence of the realm", can the Minister clarify why the Government feel it necessary to make that change? How will the Government ensure that details of patents are not withheld without suitable justification?
	In conclusion, the Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill as a vehicle for giving British inventors key intellectual property rights under revised international treaties, but we are concerned about some of the proposals to help small businesses enforce their patents rights. The Government must justify their actions further in Committee—and I look forward to that—and pledge to keep the issue under review, so that cost does not act as a barrier to the enforcement of rights by small firms.

Ian Taylor: We have had a most learned debate on this modest Bill. Indeed, the speech by the hon. Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) was learned and emotional in waxing lyrical about the decision of the then Conservative Government to provide his constituency with its glamorous offices and employment prospects back in 1991. I much enjoyed my visit to those offices in the dim and distant days when I was the Minister with responsibility for science and technology. I found much enthusiasm for the work being done with such expertise.
	I am delighted to take part in this debate, although I must make a declaration of interest. I am involved with one or two companies that apply—often successfully—for patents, so I have business interests in the area, including with a merchant bank called Interregnum that encourages companies to exploit their intellectual property.
	That experience, allied to my ministerial experience, has reinforced my view of the importance of patents, but they are not the sole solution in the need to advance intellectual property, many aspects of which are not even patentable. In this modern knowledge economy, businesses will have to find ways to increase their competitive advantage by identifying not only their intellectual property but the IP that they need to acquire from elsewhere. They often need to move speedily in doing that, which is not always the way that the patent process works.
	When I was responsible for the research councils, we used to talk about ways in which both they and the university sector could exploit intellectual property. People often asked why universities did not hold more patents. The answer was often complicated and taught me that a good benchmark for showing whether a university was really exploiting its knowledge base and getting involved in technology transfer was not always that it had ratcheted up a high number of patent applications. I use that point as background, because although the discussion of patents is obviously the reason for our being here this afternoon, patents are not the only guideline for the exploitation of intellectual property. I certainly hope that companies do not assume that that is the only benchmark they should use either for their evaluation by the City or other possible investors or for the way in which they want to be seen by their peers. Ultimately, the benchmark is commercial success, which in many cases means rapid translation of a good idea into a good product that sells.
	The difficulty with patents is that by the very process of application one often makes public the invention or the original process—a point that has already been mentioned. For many companies that is a disadvantage. Some of the Government's work—in the Department of Trade and Industry, the innovation report published at the turn of the year and the Lambert report commissioned by the Treasury to look into our university business links—shows that the danger of a patent is that it actually discloses an interest to possible competitors, which, for many companies, creates the problem of how to protect that knowledge. As I pointed out earlier, exploitation is often the best way to protect and take advantage of an invention.
	Often, the public are not really worried about patents until they seem to be threatened by their existence. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Brian Cotter) pointed out that when there is debate about some of the pharmaceutical cases, such as whether DNA sequencing should be public or private, the public prick up their ears. Sometimes, however, such debate is dangerously misguided. In many cases, pharmaceutical companies take out patents to protect the terrific investment needed for new drugs to come to market. We are slightly in danger of assuming that the pharmaceutical companies are somehow an evil influence because they possess those patents. There is debate about whether one should move to generic products and whether we should forcibly reduce the length of patent coverage and try to abolish the taper at the end of the process. Those questions can be rather emotional when applied to continents such as Africa. I understand that, but the danger in that public debate is that the patent can be regarded as an obstacle whereas in fact the whole process of encouraging companies to invest in research and take out a patent to protect their commercial advantage is important.
	That gives rise to another issue that has not been a focus for our debate: it is a mistake to believe that all patents are taken out by individuals or small companies. Some of the most important patents are in large companies and those companies can be very innovative. We should not believe that the whole process is about small companies in big battles to try to protect themselves. An analysis of the litigation shows that we are dealing with the exceptions; the problems tend to be at the margin. Most patent processes—applications and renewals—tend to go through smoothly and are not subject to great debate.
	Nevertheless, I recognise that individuals and inventors take out patents. I dealt with them as a Minister. It was sometimes difficult because they thought they had discovered the full benefits of alchemy and that the gold to be produced thereby should come to them; the manufacturing process for turning their invention into something worthwhile was of no concern to them. I do not of course include Trevor Baylis in that category; he used to phone me regularly on Sunday mornings to tell me his latest thoughts. He had great success with many products, not least the clockwork radio, and I fully compliment him. The difficulty often is to get individual inventors to work together, which is, as I am sure the Minister has discovered, not an easy task—to put it mildly. I pay tribute to inventors, but we should not be under the impression that they are the only people concerned with inventions—there are many others.
	There is a challenge for the European Union. My right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) mentioned the Lisbon agenda somewhere in his excellent speech. He pointed out that the need for us to make Europe the most competitive place in the world to do business was paramount. Of course we hope that Britain is the most competitive place within that wider European space. The Library has produced an excellent document from which I quote the definition of intellectual property given by Ian Harvey, the chief executive of the British Technology Group. He said:
	"Intellectual property is one of the few ways that you can differentiate a product and enforce its uniqueness. Competing on price or first-move advantage are ephemeral in comparison."
	That is a key point. However, Charles Oppenheim, professor of information science at Loughborough university said:
	"If we want to improve European innovation and competitiveness, many more SMEs should be using patents and patent information than currently do."
	That, too, is obviously important. The European patent convention has been a reasonably successful provider of broader patents for Europe; it has been effective in bundling together, over 27 countries, a national patent that has wider application.
	The difficulty is that, in the spirit of the Lisbon agenda, we have not actually been able to convert the work of the European patent convention into the implementation of an EU patent. That is a continuing problem in the Council of Ministers. The process has been stalled by a variety of things. Language, which was mentioned by my right hon. Friend, is not only prohibitive but emotional. The fact that we in this country think the provisions should be in English—I share that belief—is not necessarily fully appreciated, not least by the French. There are also complications arising from justice systems in Europe. There is obviously a need for a court to enforce the patents, but that challenges each of the national courts.
	Over the years, I have also detected resistance from national patent systems and national patent offices, many of which are profit-based and feel that they will be bypassed. In some countries they have an almost disproportionate influence on the Government. I hope, however, that, in the spirit of the quinquennial meeting of patents Ministers, the Minister will be able to get the scheme back on the road. It is absurd that the European single market has no court capable of implementing an EU-wide patent and relies only on the convention itself.
	The point behind the Bill is to try to find new ways of clarifying some of the arguments. We have heard the detail, and I shall not bore the House by going back over that. The conflict between employees and their employer is genuine, and it is very difficult to determine. I hope that the Minister has got the draft of the Bill right. It has been tested in the Lords, and I am sure that it will be tested in Committee. Nevertheless, part of it relates to contract law and what an employee was doing under his or her contract. Was he or she expected to develop new ideas? Any sensible company would certainly wish to compensate someone who had come up with ideas that were capable of being patented. Many universities have wrestled with similar problems.
	I return to an earlier point that I tried to make. The difficulty for an individual is that it is no good just having a patentable idea as though that was Mecca. Having a patentable idea is a means of enabling a good idea to be translated, through protection, into a public good, a consumable product, an advancement in science or whatever. The original idea may be laudable, but it is not the end product. An end product uses a patent in order to give the process time to provide competitive advantage, and many employers will not necessarily fully appreciate that the process of exploitation is as important as the idea itself.
	When I was a Minister, I was involved with an award—I believe that it continues—that specifically related to bringing together the great ideas, although not necessarily patentable ideas, produced by small companies with the big companies that were capable of exploiting them. I remember the ultrasound technology that was applied to valves used in the North sea to ensure their accuracy and reliability over many years. That required huge engineering skills—of, I think, British Gas—to attain perfection in the manufacturing process even though the idea originated with an individual or a small group of individuals.
	I will give the Minister the benefit of the doubt on another aspect of the Bill that I hope will work. I refer to the process of judging infringement and, although clause 13 has its merits, it will have to be tested in Committee. I shall not do that on the Floor of the House, but I mentioned the costs of protecting and renewing a patent. The issue of infringement is difficult. We live in a competitive world and people want to take advantage of ideas. Many companies often go through a parallel process that enables them to say that they have not technically infringed the existing patent, but merely provided something that was remarkably similar. That can involve subjective and objective judgments, and clause 13 may assist with the objective assessments.
	I underline the need for the Bill to be effective when it is converted into law. In 2002, it was estimated that expenditure on research and development as a share of GDP in the European Union was 1.99 per cent. The only comparisons that I have are with Japan, where the figure was 2.98 per cent. in 2000, and with the United States, where it was 2.8 per cent. Those gaps are significant and continuing even though Treasury Ministers and the European Commission have set the target of improving total R and D spend in the EU to 3 per cent. of GDP. I am afraid that we are still a long way short of that. For those interested, in 2002 the share of R and D expenditure in the United Kingdom was 1.84 per cent. of GDP.
	In the period between 1997 and 2001, however, the EU recorded a rate of European patents per unit of business R and D expenditure as equal to 0.6 per cent. It was followed by Japan, where the figure was 0.31 per cent., and the United States, where it was 0.26 per cent. Those figures are slightly more heartening bearing in mind my earlier point that patents by themselves are not the only benchmark for intellectual property exploitation.
	The Bill has merit. I do not believe that the worries expressed by some professional organisations are necessarily well founded, but they should be aired in Committee, and I am sure that they will be. I certainly wish the Bill good speed. We should make sure that we comply with the European convention and constantly update patent law. We should also continue to try to bring down the costs of applying for patents and the time in which they are granted. Good ideas need to be out there in the marketplace very quickly. We live in an increasingly competitive world not only among companies in this country or within the European Union, but internationally. We cannot be left behind. The Bill had better make effective law.

Gerry Sutcliffe: With the leave of the House, I would like to respond to what has been an excellent debate. As the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) said, it has been a learned and informed debate on issues that do not automatically appear in the constituency casework or postbag of most hon. Members. Nevertheless, it has been an interesting debate and contributions from both sides were excellent.
	The right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) said that it was not the most political Bill ever to come before the House, and I agree with him. However, it is important, as hon. Members said, that the "pa-tent" or "pay-tent" system—we have decided that we can call it either—is important for all the reasons that have been given.
	We need a robust patent system, which is essential if we are to maintain and encourage a long-standing tradition of innovation—crackpot or otherwise—in the United Kingdom. As the hon. Member for Esher and Walton pointed out, when we talk about innovation, we are not just talking about having a bright idea but about having an innovation culture in which bright ideas are successfully exploited. Successful innovators—whether James Watt with his steam engines in the 18th century or Owen Maclaren and his light-weight folding pushchairs 200 years later—have always been able to take their bright ideas on to widespread success. We have heard other examples in the debate.
	We all agree that, first, our patents system must be robust enough to protect properly the people and companies with the creativity and drive to make innovative technical advances. Those are the advances that—large or small—continually improve the quality of life for us all.
	Secondly, the patents system must be accessible. All innovators must be able to protect and exploit their new products or processes—whether it is a multinational pharmaceutical giant, a new university spin-off company or a lone inventor who has hit upon a great new idea. Having a system that is, as far as possible, harmonised with international patent agreements will help our innovators protect their ideas abroad too. Thirdly, the patents system must be balanced enough to ensure that the public at large continue to benefit from new products and processes and can challenge patent rights when it is fair to do so.
	I am pleased that this Government are introducing the important changes in the Bill. The major reforms made to the patents system by a previous Labour Government in 1977 have served the UK well over the past 27 years and we are now updating them. This will ensure that our legislation remains in tune with innovators' needs and with the international framework in which our patents system operates.
	I want to say a few words about the development of this Bill. We carried out a thorough and wide-ranging consultation, starting in 2002. We heard from lone inventors, small and large businesses, patent professionals, lawyers and judges. That helped us to refine significantly the proposals for inclusion in the Bill. Throughout the process, we met representative groups from right across the spectrum of patent users and we continued to listen to their views. In another place, we heard arguments on measures in the Bill where it was felt that stakeholders' concerns had not fully been met and we amended the Bill accordingly. I hope that it is clear that the Bill, right from the outset, has been developed in a spirit of co-operation and constructive debate. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire for thanking the noble Lords in the other place for their contribution in sending the Bill to us. I also thank him for thanking the Bill team and others who contributed to the process.
	We have to be effective in ensuring that the Bill develops. I look forward to participating in the Committee. Many concerns were raised and if I do not respond to them now, I shall write to hon. Members before the Committee starts. I hope that we will consider the issues in the spirit of co-operation demonstrated so far. If it appears that things need to be done differently, I will be prepared to consider doing that. I expect the hon. Member for Esher and Walton, who spent time as a Minister in the Department of Trade and Industry, to make a learned contribution. He was responsible for many innovations and I pay tribute to his work in the Department and to his well-balanced approach. He perhaps put the argument more cogently than I did—

Ian Taylor: indicated dissent.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that.
	The right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire explained that the European patent convention was revised in 2000 and asked whether a Bill will be necessary every five years; I hope not. We decided that it was time to modernise the EPC some 27 years after negotiations were completed. The European Community is considering accession to the provisions in the EPC, in which case future changes could be achieved under the European Communities Act 1972.
	Negotiations are taking place in Brussels among EU states on a European Community regulation to establish a Community patent. That will be a single patent valid throughout the entire territory of the EU, in much the same way as existing Community trade marks and design rights are. At the most recent Competitiveness Council meeting in March 2004, agreement on the regulation again proved elusive. The negotiation stalled on the language regime for the translation of Community patents and the legal status that such translations should have. Beyond that, agreement has still to be reached on what form a centralised Community jurisdiction for dealing with patent disputes will take. We will continue to do whatever we can to get the stalled negotiations restarted.
	The proposed Community patent should not be confused with a European patent granted under the 1973 European patent convention, which in effect is a bundle of national patents using a single one-stop granting procedure, administered by the European Patent Organisation. The right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire mentioned the USA and Japan. That worried me, given the Euroscepticism on the Conservative Benches. The USA and Japan are single nations that use only one language—English or Japanese—but the EU is a collection of nation states. I am sure that he is not suggesting that we make all EU states use one language. That would not give due recognition to each state's sovereignty, which I understand is important to the Conservatives—at least to some of them.
	The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned the cost of patenting. We will be pleased when negotiations on the Community patent succeed because that will reduce costs. We also support the London agreement, which will significantly reduce translation costs for all users of the European patent system. We look forward to its implementation, preparations for which are under way in the UK.
	Hon. Members mentioned small and medium-sized enterprises. We fully understand the difficulties encountered by SMEs. Finding out how to help them has been difficult, but we are building on research. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Brian Cotter) mentioned the patent enforcement project. That is a sign of our commitment to explore what we might be able to do in addition to the Bill.

Brian Cotter: The Minister will expect me to say this, but I remain concerned that the report was put off from November to March and then to April. It has now been put off until the summer, and even then the process will carry on. It is a grave concern that the report did not come out before the Bill.

Gerry Sutcliffe: The point is well made, but the hon. Gentleman will want us to get it right when we publish the research. The viability of a patent defence union that could help SMEs in particular to enforce their patents is being considered. The result of that will be available soon.
	I was asked why we have decided not to provide for additional or punitive damages. I am aware that the difficult issue of flagrant infringement of a patent engenders strong feelings on both sides of the argument, but there is by no means unanimous support for a provision to allow such damages to be awarded in patent infringement disputes. Indeed, the Opposition in another place argued that the availability of such damages would do two things. First, every claim of infringement would include a claim for such damages, leading to more legal wrangling and raising litigation costs even further. Secondly, trying to show that the other party had behaved badly would make an amicable settlement even less likely. It is not the time to introduce additional or punitive damages into patent legislation. Moreover, other proposals in the Bill are designed to help patent holders, especially SMEs, in the enforcement of their patents.
	The right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire asked about the employer-employee relationship and said that existing provisions are illogical. That is why the employee compensation provisions are being amended to cover outstanding benefit from patented inventions as well as from the patent itself. I am sure that we will return to that in more detail in Committee. I am pleased to note that most employers, for the reasons set out, are making payments. It is understandable that they would support their employees who contribute to the well-being and development of their businesses. The changes to employee compensation are intended to make the process simpler, not more complex. It will no longer be necessary to deal with the difficult and subtle distinction between benefits derived from the invention being patented and the benefits derived from the patent itself.
	My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor) intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) on software patents. It is worth saying that inventions that implement software have been patentable for decades, in both the UK and across Europe. The Bill makes no change in that respect. Software per se is not patentable and that will remain the case, although it is protected under copyright. I think that the hon. Member for Esher and Walton made the point that there are other benchmarks to consider, not just those relating to intellectual property. Novel software with an inventive stage that makes a technical contribution is already patentable and will remain so. The EU is considering a proposed directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions. One aim of the proposal is to clarify the status quo with respect to software patents, neither broadening nor narrowing the field of what may be patentable in relation to computer-implemented inventions.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West made an emotional and well-thought-out contribution on behalf of the Patent Office, which is situated in his constituency. He made all the right points about the quality and skills in the office. It was the first to achieve the International Organisation for Standardisation 9001:2000 certification status. In combination with the way in which it operates, it is clear that the Patent Office develops its staff.
	My hon. Friend was right to raise our aspirations. The right hon. Member for North-East Hampshire said that the Bill is workmanlike and devoid of emotion. My hon. Friend, in his inimitable way, talked about the power of dreams. No doubt his wonderful Welsh phrases delighted the Hansard Reporters. It is worth pointing out that we have 1 per cent. of the world's population and fund 4.5 per cent. of the world's science, produce 8 per cent. of the scientific papers and receive 9 per cent. of the citations. That is an excellent track record that shows how the UK innovates and has led in so many ways.
	The Patent Office was careful when it changed its IT provisions and made its decisions on outsourcing. As an Executive agency and a trading fund, it has the ability to decide such changes for itself. The awards mentioned suggest that it is flexible in the way in which it operates.
	Hon. Members raised many issues. The time that is left does not give me the opportunity to cover them all—

Eric Forth: We have until 10 o'clock.

Gerry Sutcliffe: I would be delighted if the House wanted to sit until 10 pm to discuss these issues. I want to try to give hon. Members detailed responses to the points that they made and it is not always possible to do that on the Floor of the House. That is why we have a Committee stage for Bills. We can go through the detail in Committee and, if we cannot reach agreement, there are further opportunities for discussion when we return to the Floor for Third Reading. However, given the co-operation between this House and the other place, I am sure that we will be able to reach agreement.
	The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare mentioned patents for curious, obscure or, indeed, alarming inventions. As was pointed out, the job of the Patent Office is not to decide on the quality of applications but only to make sure that the process has been properly undergone. He also asked why the Patent Office grants patents for inventions that seem to have little practical value. The Patent Office was set up to provide a service to the public and its role is not to decide who should or should not apply for a patent, but merely whether an application meets the requirements that Parliament decided were necessary for the granting of a patent.
	This has been an important debate on an important Bill. I look forward to the Standing Committee, where I think we will have a worthwhile discussion of many issues that affect UK science and innovation. I look forward, too, to working with the Members who have contributed to the debate today. I commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.

PATENTS BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 6 November 2003],
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Patents Bill [Lords]—
	Committal
	1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
	Proceedings in Standing Committee
	2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 17th June 2004.
	3. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	Consideration and Third Reading
	4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on consideration are commenced.
	6. Sessional Order B (programming committees) made on 28th June 2001 shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
	Other proceedings
	7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Paul Clark.]
	Question agreed to.

Joint Activities with the National Assembly for Wales

Phil Woolas: I beg to move,
	That this House approves the Third Report of the Procedure Committee, on Joint activities with the National Assembly for Wales, HC 582; and that the following Order be a Standing Order of this House until the end of the present Parliament:
	'The Welsh Affairs Committee may invite members of any specified committee of the National Assembly for Wales to attend and participate in its proceedings (but not to vote).'.
	The motion provides that the House should approve the Procedure Committee's third report of this Session, on joint activities with the National Assembly for Wales. I shall attempt to explain the Committee's proposals. I should say, first, that I am grateful to the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton). I understand that he had an important meeting this afternoon, and I am very grateful for his letter and for the fact that we are able to begin the debate with him in his place. It is obviously beneficial to the House that that is the case.
	The Procedure Committee's report follows the 2003 report of the Welsh Affairs Committee on the primary legislative process as it affects Wales. The Welsh Affairs Committee found that in pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft National Health Service (Wales) Bill—and, more recently, the draft Public Audit (Wales) Bill—there was considerable overlap between its work and that of the relevant National Assembly Committee. Joint hearings would remove that overlap and be of benefit both to Committees and to witnesses. The Welsh Affairs Committee therefore recommended the granting of powers for joint formal meetings between it and Committees of the National Assembly for Wales.
	In its response to the Welsh Affairs Committee's report, the Government expressed the view that joint pre-legislative scrutiny by the Committee and the appropriate Committee of the National Assembly for Wales would be helpful. We hoped that the House authorities would examine whether the procedural obstacles could be overcome. The Clerk of the House and his counterpart in the National Assembly set up a joint working group of officials to consider how that could be done.
	The report of the working group is published as an appendix to the Procedure Committee's report. In short, the working group found that joint meetings, if desired, could be conducted on the principle of "reciprocal enlargement": either Assembly Members would be invited to attend and take part in House of Commons proceedings or Members of the House would be invited to attend and take part in Assembly proceedings, the activities concerned counting as proceedings of the host body, chaired by one of its Members and governed by its rules.
	The Procedure Committee has come to the view that the underlying question of principle, as to whether joint meetings are necessary or desirable, requires further consideration.

Eric Forth: You bet.

Phil Woolas: The right hon. Gentleman says "You bet," and I imagine that such consideration will form the substance of this debate. However, the proposals are common sense.

Patrick McLoughlin: The Minister said that, according to the report, the proposal requires further consideration. How many of the Procedure Committee's published reports, with recommendations, have the Government failed to find time to debate on the Floor of the House?

Phil Woolas: I am afraid that I do not have those details at my fingertips, but I can say that the thrust of the recommendations has been accepted, as is the case with this report, which the Government believe is very sensible. I hope that the House will agree. Indeed, it was the Government who tabled the motion to accept the report.

Patrick McLoughlin: There is one particular Procedure Committee report, which formed the basis of a complaint that I made in the last Parliament, which the Government have never found time to allow the House to debate or decide on. I wonder on what grounds the Minister or the Government decide which Procedure Committee reports they will find time to debate on the Floor of the House.

Phil Woolas: The Government decide on the Procedure Committee reports with which the House agrees, and we use common sense to decide whether we agree with the reports. Those are House of Commons reports, not Government reports, and the Government's response is based, in large part, on the consensus of the House, as in this case.

Eric Forth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Phil Woolas: I will finish this point first. I hope and believe that this report carries the consensus of the House. It is not a Government report, but there is a Government motion that endorses and accepts the report. I believe that the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) understands that.

Eric Forth: I am curious to know how the Minister knows what the consensus of the House is if he will not bring a measure before it to be debated and if he has not heard the views of Members. That is typical of Ministers' attitudes: they assume that they know what the House thinks and they make their decisions on that basis. Can the Minister enlighten us as to how he divines the consensus of the House before he decides whether to bring something before it?

Phil Woolas: The answer is common sense.

Eric Forth: Your common sense.

Phil Woolas: Well, somebody has to provide common sense, and it is a good basis for judgment. It if transpires, following Members' contributions in a debate, that there are objections, the House will decide. The right hon. Gentleman is no stranger to the practice of objecting to motions moved from the Dispatch Box or elsewhere. However, to coin a Euro 2004 phrase, somebody has to decide what common sense is. If the right hon. Gentleman disagrees, it is his right to do so.
	This Procedure Committee report is one from the House, to the Government. The Government are facilitating debate in the House; they did not need to do so, but they have provided time for debate. I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would welcome that opportunity. The Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for Macclesfield, is in his place. The Chairman of the Welsh Affairs Committee also supports the motion and has recommended it to the House. If the House wants to disagree, that is its choice. I fail to see what else I could do if I am not to be accused of bludgeoning the report through the House. If the right hon. Gentleman were a reasonable man who accepted that the House is being asked to consider proposals regarding the procedures of the House and its Committees, I think that he would nod his consent. The fact that he fails to do so is a matter for him.
	The Procedure Committee has come to the view that the underlying question of principle of whether joint meetings are necessary or desirable requires further consideration. The right hon. Gentleman is not listening, so I reiterate: the Procedure Committee has come to the view that whether joint meetings are necessary or desirable requires further consideration. I should have thought that he would support that point at least.

Eric Forth: indicated assent.

Phil Woolas: The right hon. Gentleman nods, so I find it difficult to understand how he can oppose the motion before the House—but that is a matter for him. I am sure that he will take the opportunity to explain, should he catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	The Committee also believes that pre-legislative scrutiny of an expected draft Bill that applies only to Wales would provide a suitable experiment in joint working before it decides whether to recommend its wider use. The Committee therefore recommends that, until the end of the current Parliament, the Welsh Affairs Committee be authorised to invite members of any specified Committee of the National Assembly for Wales to attend and participate in its proceedings, but not to vote on those matters—that is most important—and subject to a quorum of both Committees being present. The Procedure Committee further recommends that during such proceedings use of the Welsh language be allowed in all circumstances, with the National Assembly providing interpreters and transcription of Welsh language contributions. The current rules allow the use of Welsh in Select Committees only if a witness has given advance notice of a desire to give evidence in Welsh, but the National Assembly is obliged by statute to treat the English and Welsh languages equally. I hope that the House will think that that is a sensible and pragmatic modification to our rules.
	The Government have responded to the Committee in positive terms. We agree that the forthcoming pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Transport (Wales) Bill, which was laid before both Houses on 27 May, provides a suitable experiment for joint working before considering whether it should be permitted more widely in respect of legislation relating to Wales. With the agreement of the Chairman of the Committee, our response has been placed in the Library and attached to the explanatory memorandum provided in the Vote Office. The Government are grateful to the Procedure Committee for carrying out a difficult technical task on a difficult policy area and for its measured and timely report. We are also grateful to the Welsh Affairs Committee for its consideration and its commitment to pre-legislative scrutiny and to joint working with the National Assembly.
	Perhaps the Chairman of the Procedure Committee will explain his Committee's thinking in more detail. I hope that the House will agree that the experiment suggested by his Committee should go ahead. I urge the House to support the motion.

Peter Luff: The debate so far on this relatively straightforward motion shows the benefit of having the opportunity to debate such matters rather than let them go through on the nod, as the Government too often seek to achieve. Courtesy of the powerful point made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), important questions have been asked about the extent to which the Executive set the agenda for the House of Commons in relation to the selection of Select Committee reports for debate.
	In a sense, we are having this debate because the present situation is the product of the very different models of devolution used for Scotland and for Wales, and the proposals represent an attempt to tidy up some of the loose ends left by the devolution process. I am glad that the Minister did not describe them as part of the modernisation agenda. He would have been wrong to do so because, as the Procedure Committee's helpful report points out, there is a precedent for the proposals. In 1933, it was decided that people who were not Members of either House of Parliament should be able to take part in proceedings in the Joint Committee on Indian Constitutional Reform.

Eric Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out, but does he not think that the fact that the procedure has not been used for all this time suggests that it might not be very useful, after all?

Peter Luff: I suspect that my right hon. Friend will explore that matter during his remarks, should he have the good fortune to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In my view, devolution has created a new and untidy situation, and the proposal—which I, rather reluctantly and on the basis that it is a trial, will support—may well be a necessary development to enable us to cope with that.

Phil Woolas: Anticipating that the word "modernisation" would be used against the proposal, I conducted some research, which tells me that in July 1933 the Joint Committee on Indian Constitutional Reform set up several sub-Committees to hear various witnesses on specific topics and nominated five Indian delegates to take part in those proceedings. The proposed procedure is not new and cannot be diminished by accusations of modernisation.

Peter Luff: I do not know what the Minister intended by that intervention, but I had intended to make precisely that point—there is a 71-year-old precedent for the proposals. Perhaps, in the spirit of openness, I should declare at this point my chairmanship of the Conservative Friends of India group. It is important that we attest to the relevance of that precedent and the need for the procedure to be revived.
	I was a little shocked by the radical nature of the proposal at first glance, but then I thought that if my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), a great and distinguished parliamentarian, recommends it, who am I to demur? However, I have three serious points to put to the Minister, because although it is not the official Opposition's intention to oppose the motion, it raises questions of some importance that must be answered.
	My first question is: how will the trial be assessed? No doubt, if it is deemed to have succeeded, a motion to continue the trial will be laid before the House at the start of the next Parliament. I would therefore like to know precisely what procedures the Government intend to use to assess success or otherwise. We know from bitter present experience that trials are not always successful—one thinks of the fiasco regarding postal voting in the European elections. Trials can fail, and the Government must recognise that we regard what is proposed as very much a trial; they must not take our not opposing the motion as carte blanche to continue, willy-nilly, in the next Parliament.

Nicholas Winterton: Seeking to remove responsibility from the Minister, may I tell my hon. Friend that I believe that, after a trial period, the Procedure Committee will examine the matter again as part of its ongoing duties to monitor the procedures of this place? Clearly, we shall take evidence on how effective the new procedure has been, not least from the Welsh Affairs Committee and the National Assembly for Wales.

Peter Luff: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, although that raises a slight difficulty of timing. I do not know when the Procedure Committee intends to examine whether the trial has been a success or at what stage the Government will seek to revive the motion in the next Parliament. None the less, I am grateful to him and I am sure that his Committee, which I hope he will continue to chair in the next Parliament, will make an important contribution to the assessment of the trial.
	Before I put my second point to the Minister, I should declare that I am a former member of the Welsh Affairs Committee. I see among those who may not speak others who were on that Committee with me. As such, I think instinctively that the proposal makes sense.
	My second point is that the very fine memorandum, written by the Clerk of the House, in the Procedure Committee's report shows the extraordinary complexity of such a simple concept. Of course, the report addresses a range of other options beyond the straightforward co- operation involving the Welsh Affairs Committee, and considers other methods of "reciprocal enlargement"—a rather ugly turn of phrase. I want to ensure that the Minister is happy that the Government have properly addressed the concerns expressed in the Clerk's memorandum and that he foresees no difficulties in that regard.
	Thirdly, do the Government plan to consider any other manifestations of "reciprocal enlargement"? There are four different models suggested in the Clerk's memorandum that go well beyond the relatively modest measure before us this evening. It would be helpful to know whether the Government are sympathetic to any of those other models, or whether they regard this measure as the end of the question.
	To pursue the thin end of the wedge argument a little further, it strikes me that the Government already have other devolutionary schemes in place, and that others are planned. Might they therefore come before the House at some point to suggest a similar arrangement for the London Assembly, for example, or for the elected regional assemblies—should there ever be such things, which I personally find unlikely? Such proposals could have quite serious consequences for the sovereignty of this House, and I would like to know whether the Government have given any thought to that possibility.
	The official Opposition have no objections to this trial, as long as it is precisely that, as long as it is properly judged before being made a permanent feature of the way in which our Welsh Affairs Committee conducts its business, and as long as it is not used as a wider precedent. It has been 71 years since something like this was last attempted, and it could well be another 71 years before we need to do it again, but we think that it is worth a trial.

Nicholas Winterton: I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for his opening remarks. On behalf of the Procedure Committee, I am glad to be able to support the Government's motion to implement the recommendations made in our third report. I should like to pick up on the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr.McLoughlin). Perhaps there will be other occasions on which I, as Chairman of the Procedure Committee, will be able to press the Government to provide time on the Floor of the House to give their responses to our reports and to debate those reports in full. I should like to take this opportunity to say that we would very much like not only a response but a debate on Sessional Orders and resolutions, as well as on our reports on procedures for debate, the role of the Speaker, and private Members' Bills.
	In fact, I have just seen a member of my Committee, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith), indicating that we have received a reply on the issue of Sessional Orders, so I apologise to the Deputy Leader of the House. I hope that I understand the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine correctly, and I would simply say that we would have liked a more positive response than the rather bland one that we have received from the Government. However, this debate is not about that.

Eric Forth: rose—

Nicholas Winterton: If my right hon. Friend wishes to intervene, I shall not refuse him.

Eric Forth: My hon. Friend is being a bit over-generous to the Government, if I may say so. Does he share my suspicion that the motion before us illustrates that the Government will bring before the House in a timely fashion those motions from his Committee that they find congenial, while failing or hesitating to bring forward anything that they find less congenial? Does that not give my hon. Friend a sense of unease?

Nicholas Winterton: I am very tempted to respond to that question at some length, but I shall resist the temptation. My right hon. Friend's intervention leads me to the next comment that I was going to make, which is that the Leader of the House wrote to me less than three weeks after the report was published, to give the Government's response to it. I was gratified to receive such a prompt reply. My right hon. Friend was suggesting that the Government would respond speedily only to the reports that they liked and found it easy to respond to, but they have responded to this report pretty quickly, and I am grateful for that.
	Perhaps, however, my right hon. Friend will think that I am following up on the gist of his intervention when I say that, in this case, this has happened mainly because the recommendations in our report are urgent because a draft Bill—the draft Transport (Wales) Bill—was published just before the recess. This is the Bill to which our experimental recommendation has been directed, so that pre-legislative scrutiny—of which the House is very much in favour—can be carried out jointly by the Welsh Affairs Committee and the Economic Development and Transport Committee of the National Assembly for Wales.

Phil Woolas: It might help the Chairman of the Procedure Committee if I were to repeat what I said earlier to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), which was that it is not true that the Government give time only to reports with which we agree. We gave time to the report on the estimates procedure, and we have committed ourselves to finding time to debate the reports on Sessional Orders and procedures for debates before the summer.

Nicholas Winterton: I am, as ever, extremely grateful to the Deputy Leader of the House—and the Leader of the House, for that matter—for indicating so clearly that there will be a debate on the Floor of the House on those critical Procedure Committee reports on Sessional Orders and resolutions, which are strongly supported by the authorities of the House, the Speaker and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, as well as on the reports on the procedures for debate, the role of the Speaker and private Members' Bills. That is extremely important.
	The draft Transport (Wales) Bill is the third Wales-only Bill to be published in draft. The draft National Health Service (Wales) Bill was considered by the Welsh Affairs Committee and by the National Assembly's Health and Social Services Committee, but the two Committees had to take evidence separately. Members of each Committee attended the meetings of the other, but as observers rather than participants. There were similar parallel inquiries into the draft Public Audit (Wales) Bill.
	The Welsh Affairs Committee has recommended that there should be procedures for joint formal meetings, and the Government's response to our Committee's report agreed that this would be very helpful. They suggested that the House authorities should examine whether any procedural obstacles could be overcome. As we explain in our report, a joint working party of staff of this House and of the National Assembly recommended the procedural solution of "reciprocal enlargement". Our Welsh Affairs Committee could be empowered to invite members of a National Assembly Committee to attend and take part in its meetings, and the National Assembly could give parallel powers to its Committees to invite members of our Welsh Affairs Committee to take part in its meetings. The object of these arrangements is to ensure that proceedings always count either as proceedings of these Houses of Parliament or of the National Assembly, rather than falling between two stools. The working party's report, which is appended to our report, also makes suggestions on the practical arrangements for such meetings.
	We therefore had an outline of how such joint meetings could be made to work. It was up to the Committee to decide, as the Deputy Leader of the House has said, whether such meetings were necessary or desirable. The Welsh Affairs Committee had also recommended joint debates between the Welsh Grand Committee and Members of the National Assembly, but although the same procedural and practical arrangements could apply, the Procedure Committee did not feel it right to recommend such debates at this stage and, in our report, we say that this matter requires further consideration. I am delighted that the Government agree with that conclusion and recommendation.
	We have therefore recommended an experiment, limited in duration—I say this to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff)—to the current Parliament. I agree that we do not know how long that will last, but we all agree that it could last a further two years. The proposal is for joint meetings of the Welsh Affairs Committee with any specified Committee of the National Assembly for Wales. That is what the motion before the House would authorise, and I hope that the House will support it.
	We recommend, as the Deputy Leader of the House said, that a quorum of both Committees should be required to be present, and that the rules should be relaxed to allow use of the Welsh language in all circumstances. I am delighted that a Welsh Member—the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams)—is here, who will no doubt seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker—[Interruption.] He is the only Welsh Member from the Opposition Benches who is present. I see that the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson), the distinguished Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, is also in his place—it is a pleasure to see him there, and I am delighted that so many Members representing the Principality, primarily Labour Members, have found time to be here. Clearly, this is an important debate as far as they are concerned. As I was saying, use of the Welsh language should be allowed in all circumstances, rather than only if requested in advance by a witness, as the Deputy Leader of the House also said. The National Assembly will provide interpreters.
	In paragraph 10 of our report, we mention the possibility that joint meetings could also involve Committees of the other place. I am pleased to be able to tell the House that the Procedure Committee of the House of Lords has made a report saying that in principle it favours involvement by the Lords, and that it will watch our experiment with interest before making recommendations in future if appropriate. That indicates that we seek to be meaningful in the recommendations, and that both Houses of Parliament are important in respect of legislation. It is important that Committees of both Houses should be involved with the National Assembly.
	The experiment that we are considering today may lead to wider use of joint meetings in future—I say "may"—but at the moment what we have in mind is the pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Transport (Wales) Bill, which is of obvious concern to the Welsh Affairs Committee and to the Economic Development and Transport Committee of the National Assembly for Wales. Both Committees wish to examine the draft Bill, and they may well want to hear from the same sets of witnesses, so it seems sensible that they should be able to do that together.

Donald Anderson: The hon. Gentleman said in a rather pregnant way that this experiment might lead to other experiments in future. He will be well aware of the proposal for some European Grand Committee. In principle, might the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament, which have an important input in those matters, also be considered for that Committee if it comes into being?

Nicholas Winterton: I will do my best to avoid answering that question. The report from the Procedure Committee—as its Chairman, I am permitted only to respond on behalf of the Committee as a whole—is very specific. It is possible that in future the Procedure Committee may consider this matter again, and that the House may consider similar matters to see whether, in co-operating with other bodies, there may be ways of meeting together for discussion. I will not be led down a tricky and steep path, however, as the right hon. Gentleman would seek to lead me. That is a matter for the future.
	Let us see how this experiment works. As I said in an intervention earlier on my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire, the Procedure Committee, as part of its duties and responsibilities, will return to this matter. Clearly, that will not be in this Parliament, but I hope that it will do so at the beginning of the next Parliament, to see how the experiment has worked. I hope that the House as a whole, without division, will support this motion, which makes good sense.

Paul Tyler: I am glad to follow the Chairman of the Procedure Committee, as it will enable me to make an even briefer speech than I intended. In the past, I have managed to do that, and I hope that this is also an appropriate occasion to do so.
	On joint pre-legislative scrutiny with Members of the other place—I, too, have seen the report to which the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) referred—there is a problem when so many participants are involved in the exercise that it is not clear who will be the core of that group. We must think carefully about that.
	In general, this is a sensible move. It is experimental and temporary, and my colleagues and I think that we should move more often in an experimental and temporary way, to test the water and to see how it works. That is the evolutionary way in which this Parliament has managed to do its business in the past. Sometimes, that evolution has been far too slow.
	I heard the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) refer to this as obviously not a radical reform, as it was supported by the hon. Member for Macclesfield, who chairs the Procedure Committee with such distinction. That is rather unfair, as, occasionally, he is radical, and sometimes he and I have been radicals together against the hegemony of the two Front Benches. I am glad that he is an independent soul in that respect.

Peter Luff: I am entirely persuaded by the hon. Gentleman's argument. I wish to withdraw the earlier unintended insult.

Paul Tyler: It is great to hear a Conservative Member say that being described as a radical is not an insult. I certainly agree with that.
	I like the concept that has been developed by our Clerks of reciprocal enlargements. There is always something that our Clerks can tell us, even if it is only a new dictionary inclusion, and I am sure that it will end up in the dictionary. In the explanatory memorandum from the Leader of the House and his Deputy, a clear example is given of why this needs to happen. It refers to the pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft National Health Service (Wales) Bill, in which members of each Committee attended meetings of the other, but joint hearings were not possible, giving rise to a significant overlap of work. What a ridiculous situation. There is far too much overlapping of work in this building as it is, and that is why we should pass the motion this evening.
	To show that I believe fundamentally in avoiding overlap, and that I intend to abide by my commitment to that, I will avoid duplication and tedious, time-wasting repetition, and I will not set out again the arguments that have already been put on the record so well by the Chairman of the Procedure Committee and the Deputy Leader of the House.

Hywel Williams: Musing on the 1933 precedent, I felt that were I a sanguine man I would say that, 71 years later, Wales was achieving the status achieved by India in that year. As it is, I rejoice in the possibility that we may have independence in 15 years. It also occurred to me that I might be the sole speaker from the Welsh Affairs Committee today, but I was overjoyed to observe the arrival of our able Chairman a little earlier.
	I dare to speak for some other Committee members in saying that we welcome this move. For my part, I welcome to a limited extent what is a limited move—the recognition of the effects of devolution and the possible redundancy of extra meetings in Cardiff and here. The experiment seems to have a practical purpose, and I hope that it succeeds. My party and I look forward to primary legislative powers for the Assembly if Lord Richards's recommendations are implemented—which, I suppose, would make the experiment redundant.
	This may not be a subject for today's debate, but if we were discussing the possibility of a Welsh language Act—fervently desired by some of my countrymen and countrywomen—I would point out that the Assembly could have a pertinent and relevant input. I am sure that many Members would welcome a joint input from the Committee and the Assembly, without the need for separate discussions and separate presentations of evidence. Such streamlining would be much more economical and effective.
	We would also welcome any influence that a joint Committee could have on Bills such as the forthcoming Public Audit (Wales) Bill—which, as far as I can see, replicates current legislation but with a "for Wales" tag. If I may say so, it does so rather unimaginatively, but that too is an issue for another day. Certainly, any development that could make legislation clearer and more adventurous would be welcome, as would be any hastening and increasing of the flow of Welsh legislation. The Assembly's record is pretty miserable in that respect, as is clear from a comparison of the number of Bills passed there with the number passed in the Scottish Parliament, where the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) may confirm that 10 times as many have been passed.
	I would be glad of the opportunity to work through the medium of Welsh in the Committee. I have a certain facility in English and speak it when I must, but I commend the liberating effect of normalising this place's use of language—enabling it to employ all the languages spoken in these islands. Certainly, the use of both Welsh and English in the Assembly and the Welsh Affairs Committee has facilitated productive discussion rather than hindering it.

Martyn Jones: I apologise for my late arrival, which was due to the usual London travel problems. I am sorry not to have been here for the Front-Bench speeches, but I understand from colleagues that there is support for this minor but, I think, important change in the way in which we deal with Welsh legislation. I consider it to be eminently sensible. I did manage to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), the Chairman of the Procedure Committee. As my Committee has pushed for it, it is gratifying that the Procedure Committee has proposed what is admittedly a one-off trial. After all, we ought to try out such arrangements to make sure that they work. Our relationship with the devolved institutions, particularly the Welsh Assembly where there is no primary legislative power, is evolving. This measure, although slight, would enable us to discover the views of our Back-Bench Assembly Members, and enable them to ask questions on behalf of those affected by proposed legislation during the process of pre-legislative scrutiny.
	I do not want to take up too much time, because I understand that the speakers so far have supported the proposal. I will say, however, that it would be bizarre if those not in favour of devolution or not—crazily enough—in favour of pre-legislative scrutiny opposed a move that has nothing to do with either. In fact, it has to do with our ability to work with our colleagues in the Assembly to produce legislation that is workable and will do the business for both the Assembly and the House of Commons.

Wayne David: I, too, welcome the proposal, and congratulate the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) on what his Committee has done. Given that it is a one-off proposal, however, may I ask whether any evaluation is planned? That would help us to learn the necessary lessons and build on them.

Martyn Jones: Our Committee will, as usual, submit to the House a report that will receive a Government response. In that report we will evaluate the implementation of the proposal, and the joint sessions will enable us to establish what Assembly Members think. I consider this a very good evolutionary measure.

Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said. Let me repeat what I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and also in my speech. At the beginning of the next Parliament, the Procedure Committee will assess how the experiment has worked. The experiment will apply to the rest of the current Parliament, and to a specific piece of draft legislation. The House, no doubt, will also review the position.

Martyn Jones: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should point out to both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) that one problem when Members arrive late is that they start dealing with matters that have already been dealt with some time earlier.

Martyn Jones: In fact I was about to finish my speech, but I then allowed interventions.
	I am sure that the hon. Member for Macclesfield will produce a report and evaluate what has happened. I am confident that the arrangement will work well, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has done.

Eric Forth: I am not at all sure that this is a good idea. I am always suspicious when Members wallow in mutual self-congratulation, saying how wonderful a report is, how wonderful the idea has turned out to be, and how everyone welcomes it. The only comforting thing I have heard so far came from the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams), who pointed out that there had been less Welsh legislation than Scottish. I have never heard a better argument for keeping the Assembly as it is and looking askance at our poor cousins north of the border, who must now suffer an endless flow of ludicrous legislation from their rather ridiculous Parliament. I would have expected the Welsh people to draw the obvious conclusion that they should keep the Assembly as it is, in the hope that that would reduce the flood of legislation.
	Here is a proposal that—contrary to what was said by the late-arriving Chairman of the Welsh Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Clwyd, South (Mr.   Jones)—has potentially profound constitutional implications, involving the relative roles of a non-legislative Assembly and its Members on the one hand and a sovereign Parliament on the other. It is dangerous to assert that intertwining those roles would be beneficial, and I am slightly surprised that the suggestion has received such a general welcome, even on a trial or pilot basis.
	If we are to take seriously the much lauded, but overestimated, process of pre-legislative scrutiny and assume that it has the benefits that it is widely assumed to have, given that the phrase contains the word "legislative", we must consider the fact that it implies that we should introduce into the legislative process members of a non-legislative Assembly. That is a rather large step to take, so to dismiss it as a relatively trivial matter and something that can be easily welcomed, and to say, "It's only a trial, so we needn't worry too much", as has happened so far this evening, funnily diminishes the importance of the measure rather than having the opposite effect. I should have thought that the House would want to pause before rushing down that route, even though, as I am glad to note, the procedure would be on a trial basis and would last for only this Parliament. That makes me think, in passing, that if the Prime Minister were to succumb to the temptation that Tea Room chatter suggests that he might and call a snap election in October, none of this might happen at all, which would be a good thing. We might then have to return to the matter in a more leisurely way.

Peter Luff: My right hon. Friend reminds me of a possible danger of the proposal. If the measure is passed as a device to facilitate pre-legislative scrutiny, surely it is possible that the Government would increasingly impose the Welsh Affairs Committee's agenda on it by giving it successive draft Bills for pre-legislative scrutiny. The Committee would thus have insufficient time to follow its own agenda and do its real job of scrutinising the Executive.

Eric Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing out one of the many dangers that exist. We should not assume that two different bodies with different roles—if devolution has any point, the bodies should be different—will always be able to work as harmoniously as has been implied during the debate. That raises several questions about how the interrelationship would function.
	Privilege has been touched on during the debate, but it has not been explored and should not be taken for granted. I am pleased that we are at least insisting that if the bicephalous body is to function, a proper quorum of both its component parts must be present. I find that slightly reassuring, given the recurring temptation for quorums to be interfered with and diminished as Members of the House are less prepared to attend meetings. The safeguard is vaguely reassuring, but it gives rise to interesting procedural questions. For example, would Members of the House have priority over Assembly Members when speaking and participating in a joint meeting?

Phil Woolas: Before the right hon. Gentleman carries his argument too far, will he accept that the recommendations from both the Welsh Affairs Committee and the Procedure Committee suggest that during the process of pre-legislative scrutiny—I assume that he supports that idea—only Members of this House should be able to vote and that Members of the Welsh Assembly should not be able to do that?

Eric Forth: The hon. Gentleman intervenes to respond to a point that I have not made. I did not say anything about voting; I talked only about speaking. The simple procedural point that I raised, which will be close to your heart, Mr. Deputy Speaker, was whether different categories of Committee members would have priority over others when being called to speak or in the way in which they may participate. I did not mention voting because I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that matter is fairly clear. Such detailed and important points must be considered.
	Although the documents before us examine privilege in some depth, I am not sure whether they are entirely satisfactory or conclusive. Hon. Members are covered by the historical concept of privilege, which is as it should be. However, it appears from the analysis that we have been given that Members of the Welsh Assembly are not similarly covered, but have partial protection. That gives rise to several questions. Will Welsh Assembly Members who participate in a joint meeting be covered by only their protection or will they have full privilege? Conversely, will Members of this House participating in a joint meeting chaired by a Member of the Welsh Assembly only be covered by the partial protection, or would they have full privilege? The Procedure Committee report mentions
	"the marginally less protective arena of the National Assembly"
	so there is a potential problem.

Phil Woolas: The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point. The advice given by the Clerk of the House is that formal meetings of the Welsh Affairs Committee to which National Assembly for Wales Members were invited would be covered by parliamentary proceedings and therefore covered by absolute privilege. On the reciprocal point on the National Assembly, that is also the case as relates to Members of Parliament. The answer to the right hon. Gentleman's important question is yes.

Eric Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but that worries me. If what he has said is that an Assembly Member—not an elected Member of this House—participating in these joint proceedings would be covered by privilege of this House, it is an important constitutional step.

Phil Woolas: The right hon. Gentleman is stretching it. Members of the House engaged in joint meetings are covered by privilege.

Eric Forth: In that case, I am reassured that Members of the Assembly would not be covered, as that is the implication of what he hon. Gentleman said. You see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, these debates have a use. So often, when we have these debates, cease wallowing in mutual congratulation and start getting down to cases, the odd interesting and important point emerges. It is a revelation to some, I suppose, that debates on the Floor of the House still have their uses.

Peter Luff: This is probably the single-most important issue of the debate, and perhaps it is something to which I should have addressed more remarks in my own contribution. I think I am correct in saying that all those who participate in Select Committee hearings—witnesses, or anyone else—are always covered by privilege. There is no innovation in giving privilege to a member of the National Assembly for Wales, because anyone who participates in such a hearing is always covered by privilege, including any witness.

Eric Forth: That is useful, but it raises a subsidiary question. Is there any distinction between a joint meeting held in the Palace of Westminster and a meeting held within the Assembly premises?

Nicholas Winterton: I refer my right hon. Friend to paragraph 7 of the report, headed "Privilege", which says—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We now have another musical Member of Parliament.

John Robertson: My apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We do not want these devices making noise in the Chamber. They should all be switched off before Members come in or, preferably, left outside.

Nicholas Winterton: I thought for a moment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you were saying that I was waxing lyrical.
	Paragraph 7 says:
	"MPs taking part in NAW proceedings would need to be aware that they would not be protected if (for example) anything they said was held to have infringed someone's human rights. Attached is a note from the Counsel to Assembly Committees."
	There is a difference, and those taking part in the debate should realise that.

Eric Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend—I think—but things are now taking a turn for the worse because the ghastly human rights have intruded into our proceedings. What is worse, it now looks as if the ghastly human rights are going to inhibit the right of Members of this place to speak their mind if they are participating in one of these, I now think, increasingly dubious joint proceedings with the Welsh Assembly. I thought for a moment that we were about to achieve clarity but a fog has descended yet again over this matter, which is regrettable because—as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) has said—it is of the greatest possible importance. We have had attempts to clarify the matter by the Deputy Leader of the House, another brave attempt by my hon. Friend, and the Chairman has done his best, but I am not sure that we are much further forward as a result.

Phil Woolas: We are.

Eric Forth: The Deputy Leader of the House says with great confidence that he is, but he will not have to participate in these increasingly dubious proceedings. Therefore, he will not be vulnerable in the way it now appears other Members of this House might be.
	Let us have a go at something that is perhaps a bit clearer and on which we seem to have clarity. I hope the Deputy Leader of the House will verify the matter of translation. Many years ago, I had the burden of being a Member of the European Parliament and I had to participate in proceedings in which many weird and wonderful languages were used. In this instance, fortunately, we will have to struggle with only two; for the time being, anyway. I know from my experience what a burden interpretation and translation can be. I was worried for a moment when I saw that we were to have two languages of participation, and I was reassured that paragraph 17 of the Procedure Committee report states that the National Assembly
	"would be prepared to provide the required interpreters and transcribers."
	I seek an undertaking that the Assembly will pay for all the costs of translation if we are to have a full Hansard in English of the proceedings. I do not want taxpayers to be expected to pick up the tab for exercises in languages other than English. If the Welsh want to use two languages, with all the attendant costs, that is fine as long as the budget of the Assembly picks that up. I do not want the House of Commons to pay an additional cost for having a strange language interpolated into our proceedings.
	I am glad that this proposal will be only a pilot. I am not at all satisfied that it will be as productive as has been claimed and I think it will give rise to a number of problems. I am reassured that the Procedure Committee will return to this mater. I hope that it will cast a genuinely critical eye and will not simply accept, as is so often the case, that something that has been tried will automatically be deemed a success, or that somehow it would be difficult at the end to say, "Sadly, this has not worked as we expected and we should just lay it quietly to rest."
	It may be that the end of this Parliament will provide a kind of natural end to this experiment, which might not be a bad thing because the next Parliament may want to look at it again. I have the greatest possible reservations and the constitutional implications have not been fully examined or considered. The very different roles played by this Parliament and the Assembly have not been taken into account, but at least we can look at the matters again. I remain to be convinced.

Tony McWalter: I thought that I would add a word as a Back-Bench member of the Procedure Committee to endorse what the Chairman spelled out at some length. I want to make two points. The House should be grateful to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who sometimes points out that things that might be taken as simple are in fact more complex than they might appear on the surface. I think that Hansard will show that this is a complicated matter. We certainly found that to be the case in our debates in the Procedure Committee, which is one reason why we wanted a relatively limited experiment to try to see how the complications would work through in a particular case. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that some of the points that he has raised formed part of our Committee debates.
	In such arguments, it is important that we have a balance and look not only at the complications, difficulties and obstructions but at the positive side. One aspect strikes me strongly from our consideration of specifically Welsh legislation. This may not be the greatest example, but it was dealt with in this House. When we debated the Children's Commissioner for Wales, many of us wanted to understand the arguments for that move so that we could see whether they were compelling in dealing with children's matters in England. Speaking as secretary of the all-party group on children and young people in care, for much of that time I felt as if we in the rest of the United Kingdom were unaware of some of the matters being raised in the Welsh debate. One aspect of the suggestion before us, therefore, is simply that we all have the capacity to learn from one another. I believe that that can benefit the way in which these islands are governed.
	My second point concerns finance and money. It must strike people as crazy that the same arguments are repeated in many different places when those who can profit from the powerful arguments being adduced and who have the responsibility to act on them could hear the arguments themselves rather than repeats of them, or repeats of repeats of the arguments. They would then have the opportunity to share whatever wisdom other people who have heard those arguments have. That is particularly important on complex and technical issues—I speak as a member of the Science and Technology Committee—that sometimes require much argument. Some of those arguments stretch the understanding beyond, or to the limits of, what some of us can cope with. If we want a Parliament better able to take informed decisions, it is important that it tries to adjust some of its structures so as to be better informed and able to think matters through more carefully, in line with the emphasis on pre-legislative scrutiny, which is a remarkable improvement in the way in which government is conducted.
	I not only commend the report to the House, but hope that its consequences will be that we see the benefits of such an arrangement and—agreeing with the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst—its complications. We can then make whatever changes are necessary to achieve the report's laudable aims without running aground on rocks in waters that we have not previously charted.

Phil Woolas: With the leave of the House, I thank right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in this debate, which on the whole has been consensual, although I accept that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) made some points—particularly on parliamentary privilege, which I shall address—that need consideration.
	I re-emphasise my thanks to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) and his Committee, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter), who is a member of it. These are House matters, but they are important as we work out the proceedings for the consideration of matters relating to devolution. It says in my brief that I should thank the Chairman of the Committee, which is right and proper, but it is also well meant, because the Committee takes time to consider these matters. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) for explaining why the Welsh Affairs Committee has requested the power to hold joint meetings with the National Assembly for Wales, and how it is planning to make use of its powers. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) for his support. He recognises that this is a House matter.
	I should like to clarify the point about privilege, because it is important. However much other Members—not least myself—may jib at the contributions of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst in such debates that go on into the evening, it is important to put this point on the record. Both Members of the House of Commons and Welsh Assembly Members would be covered by full parliamentary privilege when taking part in an extended meeting of the Welsh Affairs Committee, wherever that Committee met—in Cardiff, here or elsewhere. We are not tonight debating whether the National Assembly for Wales should extend reciprocal arrangements but whether, as the Chairman of the Procedure Committee explained, should our Members be invited to participate in meetings of a National Assembly for Wales Committee, they would be covered by the slightly more limited privilege enjoyed by the National Assembly. Assembly Members would be covered by full privilege when participating in our proceedings, and our Members would be covered only by the more limited privilege of the National Assembly for Wales. It is important to put that on the record.
	The debate has been consensual, for which I am grateful. This is an experiment, for the lifetime of this Parliament, and there is no compulsion on the House to carry it forward.

Eric Forth: I do not know whether the Minister is reaching the conclusion of his remarks, but will he be able to answer my question on the cost of translation—of getting the Welsh that may be used in the joint Committee proceedings properly into our Hansard in English?

Phil Woolas: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. When the National Assembly for Wales meets, and when its Committees deliberate, it is automatic that interpretation and translation are provided. That is one of the advantages of the meetings of the Welsh Affairs Committee taking place in Cardiff and other parts of Wales. The Welsh Grand Committee, too, has that facility when it meets. That is not necessarily the case when the Welsh Affairs Committee meets in Westminster but, if advance notice of that requirement is given, it is facilitated. The right hon. Gentleman, who is ever vigilant about taxpayers' money, as are we all, especially the Government, need have no concern over his question—he can relax.

Hywel Williams: I am grateful for the opportunity to make what is in some ways a rhetorical point. Using two languages is no problem for someone such as me. This is in fact a facility for people who are not bilingual, and some people would argue that the cost of such a facility should be borne by people who are not bilingual rather than by people such as me, who are.

Phil Woolas: That is an important point, but I would point out that currently, when the Welsh Affairs Committee takes evidence from witnesses who wish to speak in Welsh, the costs of translation fall to the House, so what is proposed would represent an economy and I would have thought that hon. Members would welcome that. That is not merely a debating point. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst furrows his brow and looks perplexed. He cannot cope with the idea that we can benefit from Welsh translation. I would have thought that he would welcome the extension of pre-legislative scrutiny. He fails to shake or nod his head.
	I recognise that some hon. Members have concerns about involving non-Members in the formal proceedings of this House, which is why it is right that the Procedure Committee and the Welsh Affairs Committee have recommended a cautious approach—this is an experiment—and the Government agree with that. This is a coming together of modernisation and cautious traditionalism, which surely must be right in improving the way in which we do our business.
	That is why the Procedure Committee recommended this modest experiment before coming to its fully considered view, and I believe that this is a sensible approach, which incidentally extends the good facility of pre-legislative scrutiny, which even the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst supports. He did not say so today, but he has expressed that point of view before. It may cause some Government Members to have reservations about supporting the measure—

Paul Tyler: Me, too.

Phil Woolas: Despite that remark, the hon. Gentleman welcomed the proposal and said that it was "quite sensible", and I am grateful to him for that. I recommend the proposal, on behalf of the Committees, to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House approves the Third Report of the Procedure Committee, on Joint activities with the National Assembly for Wales, HC 582; and that the following Order be a Standing Order of this House until the end of the present Parliament:
	'The Welsh Affairs Committee may invite members of any specified committee of the National Assembly for Wales to attend and participate in its proceedings (but not to vote).'.

Nomination of Select Committees

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I advise the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).

Phil Woolas: I beg to move,
	That the Standing Orders be amended as follows—
	(1) In Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business), line 18, leave out from 'committees' to 'which' in line 20 and insert 'to which that paragraph applies'.
	(2) In Standing Order No. 121 (Nomination of select committees), line 10, leave out from 'under' to ', or' in line 13 and insert 'the Standing Orders of this House (with the exception of the Liaison Committee, the Committee of Selection, the Committee on Standards and Privileges and any Committee established under a temporary Standing Order)'.
	The motion was tabled at the request of the Committee of Selection and has the support of Opposition spokesmen. I see that the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) is nodding. The proposal is to extend the Committee's remit to make it responsible for proposing to the House nominations not only for the departmental and domestic Committees but for most of the other Select Committees established under Standing Orders.
	An explanatory memorandum has been provided setting out clearly how the motion would amend the Standing Orders. The amendment to Standing Order No. 121(2) would provide for the Committee of Selection to propose nominations for all the Select Committees appointed under Standing Orders, with the exception of the Liaison Committee, the Committee of Selection, the Committee on Standards and Privileges and any Committee established under a temporary Standing Order—the Modernisation Committee, for example. The Committee's remit would not extend to those Committees set up under Sessional Orders—for example, Joint Committees on draft Bills.
	The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has tabled an amendment, which he will no doubt move, and I shall attempt to answer his points, but it may help if I explain to the House the thinking behind the exceptions. It would be inappropriate for the Committee of Selection to nominate itself—in fact, at the beginning of a Parliament, it would be impossible, since it would not exist. The Liaison Committee is largely a Committee of Chairmen, and its membership is established by temporary Standing Order. The Standards and Privileges Committee, as I am sure we would all agree, is very much one of a kind: the House has agreed that the normal rules of party balance should not apply to it. Its Chairman is here, and I hope that he will express his support for the motion. It is appropriate that the membership proposed to the House should be agreed by discussion through the usual channels. For Committees set up under temporary Standing Orders, as well as those set up under Sessional Orders, discussions on membership normally take place as part of the dialogue in the usual channels, so it is appropriate for current practice to remain in that case.
	Standing Order No. 15(1)(c) provides that motions proposing nomination or discharge of members of departmental Select Committees, if first objected to, are debatable on a subsequent day for up to one hour after the moment of interruption. The amendment to Standing Order No. 15 would extend this provision to all the Committees that fall within the extended remit of the Committee of Selection.
	I believe that this is an uncontroversial change. The Committee of Selection does its job well, as the whole House will agree, and it seems to make sense for it to take on the wider task. I urge the House to support the motion.

Peter Luff: I am grateful to the Minister for his warm endorsement of the motion, because it has its origins within the Committee of Selection, of which I have the privilege to be a member. The Chairman very much regrets that he cannot be here, as he would have liked to contribute to our consideration of this important but modest motion.
	I express genuine gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and to nationalist Members, because the only reason that we are having this debate is that they objected on four separate occasions to the motion going through on the nod. They are right to object to such a proceeding, as we should be able to find time for a short debate to enable the issues to be aired. The selection of the amendment shows the importance of having a debate on the motion's precise ambition. As so often, my right hon. Friend is the grit that helps to make the pearl in the oyster of parliamentary democracy. It may be uncomfortable for us, but often the result is better legislation.
	I am wearing two hats today: I am a member of the Committee of Selection as well as spokesman for the official Opposition. I can confirm that the idea commends itself not only to the Committee but to the official Opposition. Indeed, it would be odd if it did not commend itself to me, because I am going to take the credit for having the idea. Success has many fathers, but failure is an orphan. Many people would like to take the credit, and many perhaps deserve to, but, in the formulation of a Hollywood film, it is from an original idea by the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire with valuable research by the Clerk to the Committee—

Pete Wishart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Luff: Not before I have finished the credits: screenplay by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), who formalised the proposal; produced by the Committee Chairman, the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam); and directed, I am glad to say, by the Leader of the House and his able deputy. On that note, I give way.

Pete Wishart: This is clearly a production not to be missed. Given that it was his idea, does the hon. Gentleman believe that, as the Committee will have these increased powers, it is now appropriate that a minority party Member should also serve on it?

Peter Luff: I would not overstate the extent to which the   Committee is being given additional powers. The hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great respect and affection, was instrumental in keeping me off the Committee for many weeks, while he repeatedly objected to my membership of it—not, as he said when we eventually had the debate on the Committee, because he had anything against me personally, but because it provided him with the opportunity to debate precisely the point that he has just raised. I have got news for him: were he to serve on the Committee of Selection, he would not find it the most riveting Committee in this place. I look to another of its members—my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire—with some nervousness concerning how many secrets I can give away. However, I can say that its meetings regularly take less than five minutes and are conducted on a consensual basis, with the arguments being had beforehand, although not always. I hope that the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) agrees that the interests of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru are being dealt with more effectively now that they are being looked after by the Government, instead of the Liberal Democrats. They certainly seem to be being looked after well in the Committee of Selection.
	I have no objection to the nationalists joining the Committee of Selection. I thought that the hon. Member for North Tayside wanted to make the rather broader point—I suspect that he will seek to do so later—about membership of nationalist parties on other Committees. I am sorry that, because of the relative paucity of places for members of nationalist parties, he himself does not currently have the privilege of serving on any Select Committee.

Pete Wishart: I am on the Catering Committee.

Peter Luff: I am sorry—I have been taking a cheap shot. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's attendance on the Catering Committee is rather better than that of his Plaid Cymru predecessor, who attended only one meeting out of seven in the previous Session.

Pete Wishart: I have been to them all.

Peter Luff: I am delighted to hear that. The Catering Committee is a Committee of much greater power in this place, I am afraid, than the Committee of Selection, but I digress from my path.
	The Deputy Leader of the House moved the motion in a very matter-of-fact way, and rightly so. Despite the best attempts of the hon. Member for North Tayside, I have been a member of the Committee of Selection for some two years, and I am still regularly confused as to which Committees we can and cannot nominate. I do not feel too ashamed in making that confession, because I know that the Government Whips have a similar difficultly, and it should also be admitted that the Committee Clerks experience the same difficulty sometimes. There is absolutely no logic at all to the current selection of Committees for which the Committee of Selection can select. I will not regale the House with a long list of the various Committees that can and cannot be nominated, but, for example, we can nominate members of the Accommodation and Works Committee and of the Administration Committee, but not of the Broadcasting Committee. I cannot think why that should be so.
	One thing that I have learned in politics is that it is sometimes wise to ask the stupid question. At a meeting of the Committee of Selection, I asked why we can nominate the members of some Committees but not others and the Clerk promised to produce a note explaining the background. In my innocence, I thought that there would be a rational explanation. I expected some powerful logic to be offered as to why certain Committees come before our Committee and others do not, with the others having to be dealt with by the whole House under a motion tabled by the Government.
	Of course, the Clerk's very helpful note to the Committee of Selection pointed out that there was no logic; it was just one of those accidents of history. So it was that the Regulatory Reform Committee was set up under Standing Order No. 141, the European Scrutiny Committee was set up under Standing Order No. 143, the Public Administration Committee was set up under Standing Order No. 146, the Procedure Committee was set up under Standing Order No. 147 and the Environmental Audit Committee was set up under Standing Order No. 152(a). The arrangement was just a series of accidents. It is time to put those accidents right and to give the House a better understanding of how it nominates its Committees.
	I use the phrase "tidying up" with some nervousness, because the Leader of House has himself used that phrase in relation to rather more ambitious proposals for the future conduct of European affairs. But I genuinely believe that this is a simple housekeeping measure that will be of great benefit to everyone concerned in the process of nominating Committees. Having said that, I have some sympathy for the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, which would tidy up the motion even more thoroughly. Although the Deputy Leader of the House provided a brief explanation as to why certain Committees should still be nominated on the Floor of the House and not by the Committee of Selection, I did not find his reasons terribly convincing. I should be interested to hear what my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire has to say; as Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee, his views should carry weight in the House.
	It is right and proper that we do not appoint members of the Liaison Committee, which is effectively an ex officio Committee, and obviously we cannot appoint ourselves, because as the Deputy Leader of the House said, that would be completely impossible. But I need a little more persuasion as to why the other Committees cannot be appointed by the Committee of Selection. We know that, in practice, all these Committees are negotiated using essentially the same mechanism. The involvement of the Committee of Selection would provide even greater clarity. The Committee of Selection can debate the merits of the composition of a particular Committee should it wish to do so; indeed, it did so recently in respect of a particular Standing Committee. The House could then debate such appointments subsequently if they are controversial.
	I genuinely welcome the fact that this tidying-up measure also provides an opportunity to debate all Committees, whether or not any controversy attaches to them. There have been occasions, under this Government and the previous Government, when nominations to Committees have been controversial and debates on the Floor of the House have been necessary—not just to make a point about the minority parties, but to discuss the individual Members proposed to serve on such Committees.
	I welcome the motion and I am delighted that the Government have found time to table it. I am grateful for that because it will make all our lives a great deal easier, but the Government need to answer the questions raised in a little more detail than they have so far been able to. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst will surely offer some powerful arguments for even greater simplicity and clarity.

Paul Tyler: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff). He and I worked together in real life before coming to this place, so I suppose that I should not be surprised at the cheerful effrontery with which a member of the Committee of Selection has apparently defended its right to do this job on behalf of the House—a point to which I shall return.
	I am sure that the Deputy Leader of the House has read with care the Modernisation Committee's report on nominations to Select Committees. If he has not done so, I am surprised, because in the previous debate he made great play of the need for the House to listen to those who do the real work behind the scenes. He will doubtless also recall the extremely important report that the Modernisation Committee produced, under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), in the 2001–02 Session, a subject to which I shall also return.
	As has been said, the reason the report on Select Committee nominations was produced was that the Government made some very controversial attempts to remove key members from key Select Committees—members who were expected to take the Chair. The House literally revolted against the attempt by the usual channels to impose the Government's will, and in July 2001 the Government's attempt to make such changes was defeated—the House acted very speedily, as all Members will recall—and they had to come back within a few days with a revised motion.
	As a result, the Modernisation Committee, of which I was delighted to be a member at the time, spent a long time taking evidence from members of the Liaison Committee. It examined in advance a number of reports that had considered this issue, and it produced an exhaustive examination of the most appropriate nomination process for membership of these very important Committees. On the one hand, it sought to balance expertise, special interest and special viewpoints, while on the other hand maintaining party ratios. It was a difficult job and we spent many weeks on it, but the report to which I referred offered a very careful suggestion, based on that evidence. As the Deputy Leader of the House said in the previous debate, we must give credit to those who do such work on behalf of the whole House, and I hope that he will recognise the validity of that examination process in his response.
	At this point, I, too, should make a confession. In admitting to being a member of the Committee of Selection, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire was insufficiently contrite. I was a member of that Committee for four years, as my party's Chief Whip. We had weekly meetings, and I can say with truth that they were interesting—mainly for their brevity. On one occasion when, as the most senior Member present, I was in the Chair, the meeting lasted 30 seconds. That was not unusual. Indeed, over those four years, because of the way in which the business was carved up, the total amount of time that I was asked to devote to that important exercise was probably less than four hours. I can hardly say that being on the Committee took a huge amount of time.

Pete Wishart: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that that was enough time, given the onerous and difficult responsibility of the Committee of Selection to ensure that we have the right placements for departmental Select Committees? I am shocked and amazed that it could sit for only 30 seconds to consider some of those matters.

Paul Tyler: If the hon. Gentleman had been present when we debated the report of the Modernisation Committee he would have heard me make the same comment. That is precisely why I and the Select Committee of which I am a member, under the then leadership of the right hon. Member for Livingston, proposed to take that responsibility from the Committee of Selection, open the process up and make it more transparent and more responsive to the House, instead of occupying a small Committee Room for 30 seconds or so each week for that important exercise.
	I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and that is why I have real doubts about the recommendation. To hear the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire say that this is simply housekeeping and tidying up fills me with alarm. I hope that it will not be thought to be a permanent and satisfactory answer to a real problem.

Peter Luff: Is the hon. Gentleman not confusing two separate issues? At present we have a system of selecting Committees that works—I think that it works well and the hon. Gentleman does not, but that is a different point. However, he is now discussing a different issue, which is whether the way in which we choose Committees should be changed. So long as we have the present system, is this not a tidying up and an improvement?

Paul Tyler: That may or may not be so, but the motion invites us to consider the whole issue of the nomination of Select Committees. The hon. Gentleman may choose to interpret that in a certain way, but if he looks at the Order Paper he will find that the motion is described as relating to the "Nomination of Select Committees". That is why I intend to refer to the extremely important debate that took place in May 2002, based on the report published by the Modernisation Committee in February 2002.
	Paragraph 7 says:
	"The controversy provoked by this episode"—
	the episode to which the hon. Gentleman and I referred—
	"made it clear that the current method of nomination, which gives a central role to the Committee of Selection, no longer enjoyed the confidence of the House".
	It clearly did not, and for us to return to this subject again two years later without facing the issue seems at worse perverse and at best an ill-advised attempt to tinker with a system that is so plainly wrong that we should be more radical—if I may dare to use again the word that the hon. Gentleman so enthusiastically endorsed.
	There were then many proposals made to improve the situation. I am sure that the Deputy Leader of the House knows the report backwards, because he could not have attempted to introduce the debate without a full briefing on it from his civil servants; it is the critical report on the basis of which all this should be conceived.
	Paragraph 9—I shall have to read this in full, because it is so important to the debate—says:
	"The Committee of Selection has come to interpret its role as limited to confirming the proposals put to it by the front benches on both sides".
	The hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) and I will agree that the term "both sides" is pejorative in this context. The report continues:
	"This may be understandable in view of the Committee's main function of nominating Members to the standing committees on bills where party discipline is directly engaged, but has produced criticism that the Committee of Selection is no longer an appropriate mechanism to guarantee the independence of the nominations to the committees of scrutiny. Any new method of nomination needs to be independent, authoritative, transparent and able to command the confidence of the House on both sides. We endorse Lord Sheldon's comment in his evidence to us: 'the Executive, via the Whips, ought not to select those members of select committees who will be examining the Executive, that is crucial.'"
	That is the Select Committee that has considered the issue; it is not the Committee of Selection saying that it would like to do more and does not understand the current rationale. It is a Committee of this House saying that the use of the Committee of Selection is not an appropriate way to undertake the job.
	The report continues by saying that a recommendation could be made to the House that met the necessary requirements of balance and of parliamentary party involvement in the exercise, but which also provided a form of appeal. That is exactly what was discussed, and the recommendation in paragraph 12 says:
	"In our judgment what is required is not an alternative to the party process but a fail-safe mechanism to ensure fair play and to provide a court of appeal."
	Anybody who has served on the Committee of Selection knows that there is never an application from any individual member saying, "I've been maligned. The party Whips don't like me because I have difficult views. They've kept me off this Committee because they feel I would not be a supportive member of my party." In those circumstances, it is clearly absurd that the Committee should be given that responsibility—under this motion the extended responsibility—of appointing members to Select Committees.
	I shall not attempt to read out the whole report, because that would be boring at this point, but I remind Members that we came up with a perfectly workable solution to the problem of the difficult balance—to have a new Committee of nomination that would be representative of the whole House, not just of a few people who happened to be Whips in their respective parties. Effectively, that would have taken the issue away from the usual channels.
	I believe that the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire was in the Conservative Whips Office at the time, and I am not sure that the Deputy Leader of the House might not have been in the Government Whips Office, too. Sadly but significantly, on the evening of that debate in May 2002, when the proposals were put to the House by the right hon. Member for Livingston in an impassioned speech on behalf of the whole House—the Back Benchers, people who have real concerns and interests, and specialist knowledge that they could bring to the Select Committees—they were defeated.
	The proposals were defeated by an unholy conspiracy of the Conservative and Labour Whips Offices, which worked together because they saw the power being taken away from them. I have been the Chief Whip of my party, but I never regarded this issue as an appropriate one on which the Whips Offices should dominate the way in which the House fulfils it duties to the electorate. I always considered that inappropriate and, sadly, that evening, it was only too evident that those who had a special interest in retaining their power base were determined to retain it.
	Since then, that power of patronage has increased, because the House has decided to pay Select Committee Chairmen an extra salary. With a number of my colleagues, I opposed that, and members in all parts of the House had doubts about it. Now the Whips have a greater power over who should go on and who should stay off those Select Committees. I have great respect for the great majority of Select Committee Chairs, but if there is anything to be said for the power of money—I occasionally hear from both sides of the House that money, such as pension rights and so on, is important in such matters—it is undoubtedly true that that influence is even greater. Such patronage reverts to the 18th century level, which I believe to be entirely inimical to the good governance of this place.
	It was a sad evening when a relatively small majority defeated that proposal. Tonight here we are again, apparently—the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire used the phrase "tidying up", but all we are doing is giving more influence to that inadequate mechanism, the Committee of Selection. It will now be able to nominate more members to more Select Committees—but the Committee does not actually do that job. The Committee, in fact, merely accepts recommendations from the Whips.

Phil Woolas: rose—

Peter Luff: rose—

Paul Tyler: I see that both sides wish to intervene. To make a level playing field, I should first give way to the Deputy Leader of the House.

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentleman is making an impassioned speech against the usual channels, but does not the motion simply cover the Committees not covered by the Standing Orders for the Committee of Selection? This is not a conspiracy, but a tidying-up exercise.

Paul Tyler: Members on both Front Benches have now referred to a tidying-up exercise, so there clearly is a conspiracy. The Minister, I fear, does not convince me: two wrongs simply do not make a right. The fact is that the present mechanism is wrong and that if we add more to it, giving more power to the people who make proposals, we will simply make it even more wrong.
	The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) serves on the Committee of Selection, among his many other onerous responsibilities in the House. I shall be interested to hear whether he agrees with my assessment of how that Committee operates. It may be that it has changed since my time and that there is now intensive debate about the relative merits of those put forward to serve on Committees. If that is so, it is not evident from outside. The right hon. Gentleman is, I think, the sole independent Member on the Committee—

Peter Luff: There are two.

Paul Tyler: I am corrected. It may be that those two Members are regularly lobbied by Back Benchers such as the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), who may say that he has great expertise on a particular issue but has been overlooked by the Whips because, just occasionally, he tends not to follow their advice. It may be that he has, on occasion, been able to lobby the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire and has managed to gain a place on a Select Committee to which he would bring great expertise and great distinction. If so, it has not been evident. Certainly, in my own experience, on no occasion during my four years on the Committee was any alteration whatsoever made to the recommendations brought by the Whips. It is, in effect, a Whips' carve-up, and the way in which the Modernisation Committee has referred to it is interesting.

Peter Luff: The hon. Gentleman makes an impassioned speech but is building his argument on foundations of sand. I have some sympathy for what he says about other means of selecting Committees, particularly Select Committees, but how does he imagine that the Regulatory Reform Committee, the European Scrutiny Committee and the Public Administration Committee are currently selected? They are selected by the Whips, who choose their members behind closed doors with no opportunity for debate. At least the Committee of Selection provides an opportunity for debate. The motion opens the process up a bit—not much, I agree, but a bit—and I fear that the hon. Gentleman's arguments are completely wrong.

Paul Tyler: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says but he is completely wrong himself. As I said to the Deputy Leader of the House, two wrongs do not make a right. If the hon. Gentleman can persuade me that there have been regular debates in the Committee of Selection—half an hour or an hour of discussion of the relative merits of different people being placed on Committees—I shall be convinced, but I do not believe that to be the case; in fact, I know that it is not. We cannot simply pass the motion without recognising the trenchant criticisms made of the process by all members of the Modernisation Committee, particularly of the way in which the Committee of Selection does its work.

Gordon Prentice: Would it not be sensible for all political parties to lodge in the Library of the House of Commons a copy of the procedures that they use to propose names for Select Committees? I raised that point with the Leader of the House a couple of months ago but it did not find favour. If the process were transparent and public, it would be encouraging.

Paul Tyler: That is a valuable point, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is here to make it. The Modernisation Committee recognised that point but did not think it could impose on the parliamentary parties a rule about how they should act, even if transparency requires that the process by which nominations are made should be evident to all, not least for the benefit of members of particular parties, since it is not always entirely clear, even to them, why members are selected for nomination or deselected or not nominated. The Modernisation Committee said:
	"In the great majority of cases the party process will produce an outcome which commands consensus support within that party. For many years there was no substantial dissent from the outcome of the nominations to select committees. We do not seek to supplant those internal party processes, nor do we wish to undermine them."
	The point is that if it were self-evident that there was an effective process by which names came forward, it would strengthen the way in which members of Committees were nominated.
	I should turn briefly to the amendment. It is difficult to respond to an amendment before it has been moved; I have been in the position myself of not having done so. I have some sympathy with the point identified in the amendment about the exclusions, particularly the temporary exclusions. I hope that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire, as chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee, will explain his position, and I am prepared to await his views before I make a judgment. However, there cannot be a very good case for treating temporary Committees any differently from permanent ones. I can see no logic to that, and I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will come back on the point.
	The motion is not a tidying-up exercise but a bit of tinkering when what we need is radical reform of the way in which we appoint Members to extremely important Select Committees. It is unfinished business, and I hope in due course that the relatively new Leader of the House and his deputy will return to the point so that we can do properly the job of persuading the House, which we unfortunately failed to do last time.

Eric Forth: I beg to move, To leave out from first 'Committee' to end and add
	'and the Committee of Selection'.
	Whether the motion is tinkering or tidying, it would appear that the argument is finely balanced. What is fascinating is the extent to which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) have lifted the lid on what is supposed to be one of the most secret of our activities—the way in which the House nominates Members to Committees. It is supposed always to have been a great mystery, but now we know more about it than is perhaps healthy.
	If the debate has done nothing else, it has shed some light, though, frankly, to our shame. I must agree with the thrust of what has been said so far. I am drawn to the conclusion that the motion is a slight improvement on a very unsatisfactory process. My only hesitation is that when speakers from both Front Benches say that they agree with a motion, I wonder whether the rest of us should. On this occasion, and rather unusually, my judgment, on balance, is that the motion is a tiny step forward.

Phil Woolas: Does the right hon. Gentleman have the good grace to accept that the Government have given time to debate the issue, which is hardly consistent with not wishing to bring transparency?

Eric Forth: That is chutzpah, if ever I heard it. The only reason why the motion is before us today is that it was originally objected to—when the hope was, as often, that it would quietly slip through. My amendment probably helped a little in the process. For the Government to claim that it is thanks to them that we are having this debate is a bit of a try-on, to put it mildly. I accept that we are here at last and having this debate—for that I should be slightly grateful—and if I could extend my speech for another hour and 27 minutes, the damn thing would not make any progress at all. However, I am not quite in that mood tonight, and that is not my intention. I am glad that we are having this debate.
	I shall press my amendment, when necessary, because I want it to be considered. I am encouraged in that, so far, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire has said that my amendment is sensible, and the hon. Member for North Cornwall has echoed that view. I am grateful to them for that. I agree that the Minister was unduly and briefly dismissive of the amendment without providing any proper reasons. I shall say just a few words about it, because I do not wish to delay the House on this occasion.
	My feeling is that what lies before us today is a very small advance on a rather unsatisfactory position. For that reason, I believe that we should give it our support. I was mystified when the argument was initially advanced that the Liaison Committee and the Committee of Selection were the only ones to be excluded. That is only common sense, as the Liaison Committee is effectively a by-product or an ex officio body, and, as has already been said, a Committee of Selection cannot select itself, but I cannot for the life of me see why all the other Committees should be excluded from the process that we are now being invited to endorse.
	I accept that the views of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) will be crucial, because of the important role played by the Standards and Privileges Committee. If he said that he believed that his Committee should also be brought within the ambit of the Committee of Selection, I would argue, as the amendment does, that all the other Committees should, too. If my right hon. Friend is in an expansive and lid-lifting mood, he may reveal a little of what goes on in the Committee of Selection. At least it provides an opportunity for debate and deliberation by Members other than what we call "the usual channels"—in other words, the Whips. It should give us all a tiny degree of comfort to know that it is not the Whips who are carving everything up and that at least someone else has the opportunity to intervene in the process and to speak for the Back Benchers or Members who may not be nominated. That provides at least a ray of hope—I put it no more strongly than that.
	All in all, I am prepared to support the measure, but I urge the House to support my amendment, which I will press at the appropriate point. Unless the Deputy Leader of the House can give a much more persuasive and cogent reason why my amendment should not be accepted, I believe that it would strengthen the purpose and allow us to move a little further forward. That is the rationale of my amendment. What it says is self-evident and a good reason should be provided for why it should not be accepted rather than the other way round. For all those reasons, I hope that the House will accept the motion, as amended.

George Young: It is a pleasure to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who exhibited some interest in my views on the matter of debate. I agree with what he said. I also agree with the argument of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), but I disagree with that hon. Gentleman's conclusion and agree with that of my right hon. Friend—that the motion represents a useful step in the right direction. I sit on the Committee of Selection and I am the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee, which is one of those that would not be affected by the proposed change.
	The torch of publicity does not shine very often on the work of the Committee of Selection. As we have heard, when it does meet it makes very good use of its time. We meet under the brisk and efficient chairmanship of the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam). Most of our work is uncontentious and unexciting, and I would be misleading the House if I said that we debated extensively the merits of the various candidates that we are about to place on Select Committees or Standing Committees.
	Occasionally, however, the Committee emerges, blinking, into the public gaze. As the hon. Member for North Cornwall said, that was certainly the case at the beginning of this Parliament. On 16 July 2001, the House quite rightly rejected the recommendations of the Committee of Selection. On that occasion, to answer the   point made by the hon. Member for North Cornwall, there was a dialogue between myself and those Labour Members likely to be adversely affected by what the Whips said. I give away no secrets when I say that there was a debate and a vote was taken in the Committee of Selection on the proposition that the two relevant Members should not be included in the respective Select Committee nominations. I felt a little like the man in the Bateman cartoon who had asked for a vote in the Committee of Selection. On that occasion, we had the sort of dialogue that the hon. Member for North Cornwall mentioned between an independent, non-Front Bench member of the Selection Committee and those who wanted to serve on a Select Committee but feared that the usual channels were about to exclude them.

Paul Tyler: Has there been any similar occasion since that episode or since the House decided to retain that mechanism and to continue to expect from the Selection Committee a discernment on the issues that has not always been there?

George Young: As the hon. Gentleman will know, Select Committees are appointed at the beginning of the Parliament for its duration, so we have not had the opportunity to consider their membership except when changes have to be made, when the same issues do not normally arise—because the Chairman is in place and the changes are usually at a relatively junior level.
	We have had other debates in the Selection Committee. It is giving away no secrets to say that we had a debate after the Second Reading of the Higher Education Bill and the vote on tuition fees. We had a debate about the appropriate number of Labour Members for the Standing Committee, because it needed to reflect accurately the views of the House. Although most of the meetings are quite brisk, on important occasions the Selection Committee discusses the sorts of issues that Members have raised in this debate.
	As the hon. Gentleman also said, the Selection Committee also debated the proposals from the Leader of the House two years ago. I supported the changes, but they were narrowly defeated in the House. I have urged the Leader of the House on several occasions to revisit that decision, because it did not appear that evening that everybody knew exactly what was going on. I am not sure that the Whips were as even-handed with information as they might have been.
	However, we are not discussing the radical reform that I and other Members supported. What is on offer is a modest improvement that would give the Selection Committee powers—currently held by the Government—to nominate to certain Select Committees. The change would filter through a Committee of the House nominations that at present go straight from the Executive to the Order Paper. That would be a step in the right direction, because the Committee would filter and examine—and where necessary debate and challenge—the nominations.
	The present position is not logical. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) pointed out, we do not make nominations to the Broadcasting Committee, but we do make nominations to the Catering Committee. We nominate to most Select Committees but not, for some reason, to the Public Administration Committee. I welcome the move to refer more nominations to the Selection Committee and allow them to be debated under Standing Order No. 15 (1)(c). I have some sympathy with the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. My negotiating position was that the Selection Committee should nominate to all Select Committees, although I accept that there are reasons why we should not do so to two in particular. It would be somewhat incestuous for the Selection Committee to nominate itself, and the Liaison Committee membership is largely ex officio—it is too big a Committee, but that is a separate debate.
	I have not discussed with my Committee the issue of the Standards and Privileges Committee, but, speaking personally, I would have no objection to it being nominated by the Selection Committee. Indeed, as a member of the Selection Committee, it would be a vote of no confidence in myself if I were to insist that it were excluded. The Leader of the House is right to say that the Standards and Privileges Committee is a different sort of Committee, and its composition is now different, too. The Government do not have a majority, with five members from the governing party and five members from the Opposition parties. By convention, the Opposition parties provide the Chairman.

Phil Woolas: The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. It is a convention, and a valid one, that the Chairman of the Committee is an Opposition Member. Is that a valuable convention and, if so, would the changes proposed by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) jeopardise it?

George Young: The Minister skates on thin ice, because the convention that the Chairman of the Standards and Privileges Committee should be an Opposition Member was a key recommendation of the Wicks committee. It was a recommendation that was accepted by the Government, so if the Government were then to use their majority on the Committee of Selection to prevent that from happening—I am not quite sure how they could do so because the Committee selects its own Chairman—they would be breaking their acceptance of the recommendation of the Wicks committee.
	I see that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is looking perplexed.

Eric Forth: No, no. Following the intervention of the Deputy Leader of the House, I was merely thinking that the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee is by long convention a member of the Opposition and that there has never been any difficulty as a result of that long-established process.

George Young: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not want to disturb the amiability of the evening, but I think that the Deputy Leader of the House was perhaps pushing the debate slightly outwith the boundaries of good order on this motion.

George Young: The Public Accounts Committee is not appointed by the Committee of Selection. I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst was assuming that it was. In answer to the question put by the Deputy Leader of the House and by others, I would have no objection at all, speaking purely personally, if the Government indicated that they were happy with that part of my right hon. Friend's amendment that related to Standards and Privileges. Yes, the Standards and Privileges Committee does not reflect the balance of the House, but the Committee of Selection is perfectly capable of reflecting that in its decisions.
	In passing, as the role of the minority parties has been referred to once or twice, although the Standards and Privileges Committee is now one smaller, we have found a place on it for a member from one of the minority parties. That place was found not from the Government's allocation but from that of the Opposition.
	In conclusion, I welcome the steps that are being taken. If the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is pushed to a Division I should be minded to accept it, but this cannot be the final word on a system that is, I agree, crying out for more radical reform.

Pete Wishart: I am grateful to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) for shedding some further light on the recesses and cobwebs of the Committee of Selection. The more I learn about the Committee and the activities it undertakes, the more the alarm bells ring in my head about exactly what goes on.
	It will not surprise you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or the House to hear that we oppose the motion, for the simple and straightforward reason that we do not want an extension of the powers of the Committee of Selection as long as minority parties remain excluded from it. As long as the Committee remains the preserve of the three main parties, we believe that it neither deserves nor requires further new powers or responsibilities.
	I listened carefully to the Deputy Leader of the House and to the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and I heard what they said about the motion being a tidying-up exercise—that it was a common-sense approach to taking care of a few outstanding issues. That may be what it looks like to them, but it is not what it looks like to us in the minority parties. We are outwith that process. We are excluded from what is going on and as long as the Committee of Selection remains unrepresentative of the whole House, it should have no further new powers.
	The motion could exclude the minority parties even further by entrenching the powers of what is an unrepresentative Committee. Given what we have learned about the Committee, it would be worth while to look at what it does. What it does—and it seems to do it very well—is what it is told by Government Whips and by the usual channels. There seems to be no independence of thought or strategy. The Committee does not seem to be responsible for determining its own agenda and debating its own issues. It seems to be completely at the behest of Government Whips and the usual channels.
	Perhaps we should look at what the Committee of Selection should nominally do. As far as I can see, it has quite substantial powers. It is responsible for nominating positions to the departmental Select Committees. That is an onerous responsibility and an onerous task, which requires the utmost transparency and fairness, yet the Committee is asking for more powers.
	Does the Committee discharge its existing powers judiciously, effectively and efficiently in all parts of the House? I have come to the depressing conclusion that the Committee does not discharge its current powers responsibly in a way that meets the requirements of the whole House. We in the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru have been two places short on departmental Committees since 2001 when the House was elected, yet the Committee of Selection has made no real effort to try to correct that wrong. On that basis, I oppose the motion.

Peter Luff: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have some sympathy for his view that the minorities parties are under-represented on the Select Committees, but I am trying to work out what he thinks that non-Government members of the Committee of Selection can do to put that right. I am not sure that the option rests with us. I need to think exactly what the procedure is, and I feel a little chastened by that.

Pete Wishart: There is no need to chasten the hon. Gentleman. There is a solution. I very much support what was said by the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler); we have to throw out this Committee entirely. A new Committee of Selection that is representative of the whole House and that includes members from all political parties would be entirely appropriate. We should transfer the powers not to this discredited Committee of Selection that, as we have heard, does so little, meets so little and debates so little, but to a new Committee that is fully representative of all the opinions and parties in the House. That is the solution.
	It would be churlish not to acknowledge that progress has been made. As I pointed out to the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire, I am on a Select Committee. I have now reached the dizzy heights of the Select Committee on Catering, and I am very grateful for my elevation to that prominent position. It is a position that I take seriously, and I manage to turn up week in, week out to exercise my responsibilities.

Peter Pike: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there are places for members of his party and Plaid Cymru on the Regulatory Reform Committee? They will always be welcome on that.

Pete Wishart: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It is news to me, and I will examine that kind invitation in detail and at length. I am sure that he will accept that we participate on Committees when we are given the opportunity. As I said, I am a member of the Catering Committee, and I very much enjoy serving on that. I assure him that I am a diligent member of it and take the opportunity to scrutinise the operations of the Refreshment Department of the House. That is a very important task. However, believe me when I say that questioning Mrs. Harrison about the cost of a fruit scone in the Terrace Cafeteria is not quite the same as questioning the Foreign Secretary about Government policy in Iraq. Important though—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have a wider debate. I have given some latitude to allow the argument to develop, but it is essentially a debate about the motion on the Order Paper. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not go too far down the line that he now appears to have adopted.

Pete Wishart: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am just trying to make sure that the House understands that progress has been made. I think that the House accepts that the minority parties lack these places and that the Committee of Selection has not been particularly fair to us. We receive sympathy from both sides of the House, and I think that all political parties recognise that a bit of an injustice has taken place. If it is not an injustice, there are certainly issues to do with minority party representation on the Committee of Selection and, therefore, on departmental Select Committees.
	If we had a place on the Committee of Selection, we would make sure that the minority parties were properly represented on the departmental Select Committees. However, the reason that we are not on the Committee of Selection or the other departmental Select Committees always comes back to the arithmetic. We are told that the numbers do not stack up. However, even when the numbers stack up in our favour, something else is added to the equation. I take the Liaison Committee as an example. It has been mentioned in the debate, and it is 34 members strong. Even by the crudest arithmetic, we are entitled to 1.3 places on that Committee. However, one can only be a member of the Liaison Committee if one is the Chair of a Select Committee.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I say again to the hon. Gentleman that this cannot be a debate about the composition of the Committee of Selection. It is about the Committees to be chosen by the Committee of Selection.

Pete Wishart: Thank you again, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I accept your chastisement.
	We oppose the motion, because we very much want to ensure that we have the proper mechanism for selecting the members of departmental Select Committees. That role is currently exercised by the Committee of Selection, and that suggests that that Committee has the additional powers to look after other Committees. We must question whether the Committee of Selection should have new powers when it must effectively demonstrate that it is able to exercise its current powers.
	One of the major tasks for the Committee of Selection is to determine the membership of departmental Select Committees. We heard from the hon. Member for North Cornwall of the arithmetic that was carried out to ensure that parity was reached between all the political parties in the House. However, we in the minority parties are 23 strong and represent 3.5 per cent. of the total number of MPs. The Committee of Selection looks after 18 departmental Select Committees. Three of them are territorial, so we obviously get a place on them as national parties. That leaves 15 departmental Select Committees with 172 members. According to the arithmetic, we are entitled to 3.5 per cent. of the places, but we actually receive 1.2 per cent. The Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru are two short—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have tried to encourage the hon. Gentleman to desist from that line of argument, but he appears to be sticking tightly to his script. I suggest again that he reverts to the terms of the motion.

Pete Wishart: Thank you once again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for offering me your guidance.
	The Committee of Selection is important. As such, it should not remain the exclusive preserve of the three main parties, which is what will happen if the motion is passed. If any Committee should be representative of all parties, it is the Committee of Selection. Something is not working, and I question whether the measure solves the problem in the Committee of Selection. The House is not representative in the way that it does business on its Committees. We are a multi-party democracy, which should be reflected in our Committees. Collectively, we represent 3.5 per cent.—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman is not prepared to take the advice of the Chair, he must resume his place. I shall allow him some concluding remarks, but he has ignored my advice at least twice.

Pete Wishart: I am sorry if it seems that I have ignored your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	We oppose the measure because it does not address the problems and issues that we have identified. We need to ensure that the Committee of Selection—any Committee that determines the places on departmental Select Committees—is as representative of the House as possible. I ask the House to oppose the motion.

Gordon Prentice: I did not intend to contribute to the debate, but I have a couple of things to say. The Committee of Selection does not select. It is a rubber stamp. It takes what is given to it by the Whips and puts the names forward to the House. I want that to change. I want the Committee of Selection to be more deliberative—to look at the composition of the Select Committees, the merits of individual candidates and, crucially, the way in which names are proposed by the political parties, as I said in my intervention on the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler).
	I was on the inside of the parliamentary committee of the parliamentary Labour Party for two years and know how the system works for Labour Members who are put forward for membership of such Committees. We are told that there has to be a gender balance, a regional balance and an ideological balance. The fact is that it is difficult in those circumstances to challenge any name without being caught out by some kind of balance. What is the result of that selection process? The figures for the last Session show that 65 Back-Bench colleagues in the parliamentary Labour party did not serve on a Select Committee. Some 56 Labour Members served on more than one Select Committee. Seventeen Parliamentary Private Secretaries or bag carriers—it sounds pejorative but I can say it; I was one myself some years ago—were members of Select Committees. Should the Committee of Selection take that into account?
	What about the Liberal Democrats? Some 28 of their Front-Bench Members served on Select Committees. I understand that; it is a smaller parliamentary party. I could run through equivalent figures for the other parties—

Pete Wishart: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I was out of order in referring to the arithmetic and numbers, why is the hon. Gentleman not out of order for doing the same thing?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point. I allowed him some latitude, and it was when he had been going for seven minutes that I decided to be a little sterner with him. I am listening very attentively to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), and I hope that he will remember the terms of the motion; otherwise he, too, may find that I shall be somewhat interventionist.

Gordon Prentice: I certainly would not wish you to be stern with me, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	I conclude by saying that how the political parties put people forward for Committees should be a legitimate concern of the Committee of Selection. While I support the motion, I hope that we will all consider those issues and take up the suggestion that I made some months ago to the Leader of the House that all political parties represented here in this Parliament should lodge in the Library of the House of Commons a memorandum stating the criteria that they use for putting Members forward for Select Committees.

Phil Woolas: This has been a useful and largely consensual debate. [Interruption.] It has. I remind the   House that the debate is taking place on the recommendation not of the Government but of the Select Committees concerned. The House will be grateful for the contributions of the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and others. The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam) explained why he could not be with us tonight. The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire, said that he has reservations but, on the whole, he welcomes the proposals.
	The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) made remarks that he has made before. I appreciate his consistency but his statements may be characterised as anti-Whip. The hon. Gentleman does not like the idea that the usual channels influence the way that we do business. I have to say to him—I know that he will disagree, as may others such as my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice)—that our system in this Parliament depends on the usual channels. It is perfectly legitimate for Members to argue against that, but that is the system.

Paul Tyler: I was not arguing that there is not a role for the usual channels. They have been referred to as the necessary sewers of the parliamentary system: unseen but nevertheless important. My point, which I hope the Deputy Leader of the House will come to, was that the report identified Select Committee membership as being inappropriate for nomination by the Whips—membership of other Committees yes, but not Select Committees.

Phil Woolas: The hon. Gentleman is consistent in his point of view, but I do not accept that one can describe the Whips as sewers; they provide the necessary lubrication of the parliamentary system. I will not go down that channel, but as an ex-Whip I take exception to the hon. Gentleman's description.
	There are sensible reasons, which have been accepted by hon. Members on both sides of the House, for accepting the motion. Its motive and intention are to move towards what the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle want. It would bring appointment to some Committees into line with appointment of Select Committees generally, although it excludes some Committees that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) would like included—his amendment would go further than the motion. It would, however, be churlish to disagree with the thrust of the proposal; indeed, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire has welcomed it as a step forward, although he expressed some reservations.
	The hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) spoke about the representation of minority parties. That matter was raised recently during business questions. On that occasion, it was made clear that the Government are aware of and understand the concerns of the minority parties about their representation on departmental Select Committees and other Committees. Progress on addressing those concerns has been made in several ways, for example, by accommodating their interests in the nomination of recent Joint Committees for pre-legislative scrutiny and of Standing Committees on Bills and delegated legislation. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the minority parties have been treated unfairly by the Committee of Selection, but I believe that the Committee takes great pains to be fair to all parties. Its task is not a simple one and it is not possible to reflect the precise balance of the House on every Committee—as the hon. Gentleman accepted. Inevitably, there is debate and some competition about which parties should be represented.
	The changes proposed by the Committee—not by the Government—are sensible. It is not sensible to have a different method of selection for some Committees, although the Standards and Privileges Committee, whose Chairman, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire is present, offers an exception. Speaking on behalf not of the Government but of the House, let me say that it is important that we in Parliament have a system—the usual channels—that is a proper system and is seen to be so. Not only should Committees such as the Standards and Privileges Committee be seen to be appointed by the House with the consent of the House, but such matters should be subject to public scrutiny.
	The motion sets out a sensible way forward. It is not as radical as some have suggested, and certainly not as radical as the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst suggests, and it would be churlish to oppose it. I believe that the change in practice that we have been debating is a modest and sensible one that is designed to streamline and rationalise the way in which we nominate Select Committees. I commend the motion to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The House divided: Ayes 23, Noes 128.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Main Question put:—
	The House divided: Ayes 136, Noes 1.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Ordered,
	That the Standing Orders be amended as follows—
	(1) In Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business), line 18, leave out from 'committees' to 'which' in line 20 and insert 'to which that paragraph applies'.
	(2) In Standing Order No. 121 (Nomination of select committees), line 10, leave out from 'under' to ', or' in line 13 and insert 'the Standing Orders of this House (with the exception of the Liaison Committee, the Committee of Selection, the Committee on Standards and Privileges and any Committee established under a temporary Standing Order)'.

GREYHOUNDS (WELFARE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Alan Meale: Mr. Speaker, may I say at the outset that it is a privilege for us, at such a late stage in the evening, to see you here, having made your way from your chambers to listen to an Adjournment debate? I just wish that some of our colleagues in this place would follow your example, because tonight we are debating an important subject—the welfare problems in and around the sport of greyhound racing.
	As many hon. Members are aware, I have taken an interest in this subject over a very long period. I attempted to argue the case for a greyhound levy as far back as the 1980s, and I was a member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs that held an inquiry into that subject and came out in favour of that. Regrettably, that idea has not made much progress and there has been no improvement in the years since I have become interested in the sport. Even though much has been attempted in greyhound racing—second only to football as the most popular spectator sport in the United Kingdom—it is still far from satisfactory from a welfare point of view.
	My speech today is not intended to harm the industry in any way. I accept that there are those who want to ban the sport, but that is not my aim. I simply feel that something must be done to improve greyhound welfare for the sport to move forward and prosper—indeed, for its very survival. It is particularly galling to me that there is a lack of funds to provide for proper retirement provision for greyhounds when the industry is not short of money.

Rudi Vis: What does my hon. Friend estimate the cost of such a provision would be?

Alan Meale: Frankly, it would be peanuts in relation to the amount of money in gaming. For instance, the bookmakers make an incredible sum from the industry: more than £2 billion was bet on greyhound racing in the past year alone. The comparison with the amount that is given in horse racing, even under the new proposals for greyhounds, shows a stark contrast. Perhaps £6 million will be given in greyhound racing, compared with about £80 million.
	I welcome the increase in funding that Lord Lipsey, a colleague and friend, negotiated with the bookmakers: a rise to 0.6 per cent. of turnover on greyhound betting by 2006. I note that it remains voluntary and I am sure that the British Greyhound Racing Board will work hard to persuade all bookmakers to collect all the money, but there will remain quite a few—at the present level, about 20 per cent. of the bookmakers that make money from greyhound racing—who will not pay and will do everything in their power to avoid paying. Nevertheless, the money will move the debate forward, although it does not provide the full solution for all the tracks and the greyhounds that race on them.
	My right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and Tourism deserves credit and the thanks of the House for his part in gaining the agreement, but his Department has now passed the issue to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, in particular in the form of responsibility for the proposed animal welfare Bill. The only way of guaranteeing that the extra money is put to the best possible welfare use is to ensure that the Bill sets out strict standards of welfare that greyhound tracks and owners must abide by, and that must be on a statutory, not a voluntary basis.
	While I welcome the recent increase in funding that the British Greyhound Racing Board has managed to secure, as the Minister no doubt does, it is important to remember that none of the money is proposed to go to independent greyhound racing tracks that are not within the BGRB's remit. That is, I firmly believe, the single most important reason why further delay is unacceptable. The greyhounds racing on the 21 independent tracks need Government intervention now and it cannot be left to the industry and internal reform. That will not be enough. We have had no satisfactory guarantee so far on how much of the money will be spent of welfare. Worse still, there is no guarantee that everyone will pay.
	As the Minister has often pointed out, animal welfare Bills come around only once every 100 years, so necessary welfare improvements must be in the new Bill to make the most of the opportunity.
	We are all aware that there are welfare problems before, during and after a greyhound's racing career. The League Against Cruel Sports, for one, has recently recognised that and has launched a worthy campaign to improve greyhound welfare, which I urge hon. Members to support. There is clearly strength of feeling in the House for welfare improvements in the sport, as shown by my recent early-day motion, which has so far received 249 signatures from hon. Members of all political parties.
	My first concern is about the breeding of greyhounds. Recent figures show that every year in the United Kingdom about 5,500 greyhounds are bred for racing, yet around 2,000 dogs across the UK and Ireland vanish before even being registered as racing dogs. It is believed that most are killed because they are surplus to requirements. At the very least, we can all agree that if that is true it is very wrong. Indeed, it is disgraceful to over-breed greyhounds simply for sport, and it must be stopped. We need a proper statutory licensing system for all greyhound breeders that would involve registration and the full publication of statistics. Breeders would have to accept full responsibility for all puppies born. Those who overproduced and subsequently abandoned puppies would be dealt with and, if convicted, their licences would be removed.
	All too often, greyhounds are seen by the unscrupulous in the sport simply as commodities. For that reason, insufficient consideration is given to their welfare needs during their careers. As with their human athletic counterparts, racing dogs often have very short careers, not least due to the stress caused by repeated minor injuries. Those who, like me, take an interest in greyhound racing are aware that the majority of serious injuries to greyhounds happen on bends. The smaller the bend the greater the centrifugal force exerted on the dog's joints as it runs, which in turn leads to joint problems and injuries. Mr. Paddy Sweeney, MRCVS— the father of a former Conservative Member of Parliament and Britain's best-known greyhound racing vet—has recognised that factor. He argues that the only way to guard against such injuries is for tracks to have a much larger radius—at least 80 m—to enable greyhounds to run upright round bends. As I hope the Minister will appreciate, the really sad part is that despite that simple logic, money for such research and help in establishing such tracks is almost non-existent.
	Of course, that is not the only factor that causes injuries: track and kennel standards must also be good. Indeed, there have been several cases of poor track or kennel standards leading to greyhounds dying or being seriously injured. One example is the truly scandalous death from heat exhaustion of the dog "Football Focus" at Catford stadium in August 2002.

Dennis Turner: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge the work being done to improve the lot of greyhounds? One example is Monmore Green greyhound stadium in Wolverhampton, which has just built state-of-the-art, 21st-century kennels with air conditioning and all the facilities necessary to give greyhounds the best opportunities to succeed in their racing careers and to enjoy their subsequent retirement.

Alan Meale: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention and I congratulate him and his local track. That is a shining example of what should happen, but unfortunately much more needs to be done. As I said, the welfare situation at the 21 independent tracks throughout the country leaves much to be desired.
	Worse still, the lack of attention to injuries and the inability to cope with the associated problems is illustrated by the fact that some greyhound stadiums do not even have vets at the trackside. The Government must take up this issue as a priority, and the greyhound industry must change its approach. Needless to say, I would welcome the Minister's commitment today to ensuring that a veterinary presence be guaranteed at all tracks, but before he deals with that point, I should inform him that many existing track vets are employed by promoters, which in some instances can lead to conflicts of interest. I hope that he agrees that it would be scandalous if dogs with suspected injuries were forced to race. Perhaps he could ponder that point and respond to it, and take it into account when considering the structure of the proposed animal welfare Bill. Of course, one cannot generalise about the standard of vets employed in the industry, and I am sure that they do their best, but the fact is that, faced with a strong betting market, they could come under pressure to take such decisions. They should therefore be independently employed, so that such conflicts cannot arise.
	There is another point that the Minister might want to consider. One reason why I am arguing that vets should be independent and not subject to such influence is that the betting on any single greyhound race totals well over £1 million. We are not talking about peanuts; that is real seven-figure money.
	Specialised mandatory training provisions for greyhound vets may also be appropriate. I am sure that the Society of Greyhound Veterinarians would welcome that, or at the very least the monitoring of tracks and the greyhounds that are raced upon them. Vets sometimes have little time to examine racing dogs, which makes it difficult for them to spot minor injuries, and their job is made more difficult by the numbers racing at any one greyhound meeting. Twelve races with six or even eight dogs in each race, plus the reserve dogs, mean that at any one track during the day or night there could be between 90 and 120 dogs.
	As with horseracing trainers, trainers should have the right to withdraw any injured dog in their charge, subject to veterinary certification, or at the very least, in appropriate circumstances vets should be able to prevent dogs from racing.
	When we examine the problems that occur after racing, the figures become truly shocking. For example, although statistics show that thousands of greyhounds retire from British greyhound racing every year, little more than 2,000 a year are known to be re-homed by greyhound welfare groups. Every year, we simply do not know what happens to thousands of others. That is unacceptable.
	Sadder still is the fact the many retiring greyhounds die because they no longer race. Some are put down inhumanely, dumped on the side of motorways, mutilated or otherwise horrendously injured. One of the most notorious cases occurred in Scotland in 1994, when 19 greyhounds were found dumped in an empty quarry. More recently, many hon. Members will have read of the mutilated greyhound found alive in the Rhymney valley in south Wales, with its ears cut off and a hole in its head. That greyhound had run predominantly at independent tracks in Wales, most recently under three different names—Last Hope, Rusty and Charlie. Its ears had been cut off to remove its registered marks, and the hole in its head had been caused by a Hilti gun, which had been fired into its brain. When the dog was taken to the vet to be humanely put down, it was found that the bolt had gone right through and broken its jaw.
	Radio Five Live reported that case, and also that of a man in west Yorkshire who was arrested by police in connection with a dubious scheme of accepting money to take greyhounds to retirement homes. No trace has been found of any of those dogs ever reaching any retirement home. Greyhound retirement charities throughout the country all have stories of dogs that have been injected with some substance or other—sometimes antifreeze—to kill them, or simply tied up and abandoned without food and left to die.

Dennis Turner: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's case that the ill-treatment of greyhounds is unacceptable and deplorable, but can he give me one example of the wicked ill-treatment of greyhounds that race on registered tracks? All his examples have related to what we used to call pirate tracks, which are not registered under the greyhound rules.

Alan Meale: I understand what my hon. Friend is getting at, and it is right to say that the BGRB is much more active in trying to ensure that that does not happen in the sport. I pay tribute to the board for that, but the problem is that many dogs that start racing under the BGRB end up on the independent tracks. For instance, the dog with the three names that was found in Wales was initially registered at Nottingham greyhound track, a registered track in my area. Many of the dogs move from area to area and are dispersed and abandoned by their original owners when they are no longer of the top rank. They have to make way for new dogs, and they do not fall into the best hands.
	I pay tribute to the excellent work of the Retired Greyhound Trust, which does a magnificent job in finding homes. Frankly, however, it cannot cope, because money is required and it is not coming through. Perhaps it cannot be that everyone can have a greyhound at home, but it is important to set up homes for the dogs. I recently read a report by the all-party group on animal welfare of the National Assembly for Wales, which concluded that approximately 140 greyhounds are abandoned and taken to local authority dog pounds every year in Wales. In reality, that certainly means that thousands more dogs are treated the same elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
	The report details concern about independent tracks, and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner) was right to point out that they are the major bugbear. No matter how much money the BRGB gets under the new arrangements to pay out to official tracks, it will not be able to do anything about the independent tracks. We cannot simply have a situation in which only the BRGB is covered; we must cover all tracks.
	Greyhounds are currently identified by ear tattoos that are supposed to identify owners or trainers who mistreat or abandon their dogs. However, as in the recent south Wales case, that has led to some dogs having their ears cut off before they are killed or dumped. Surely a better solution would be to place a microchip in all dogs from birth and back that up with a DNA register. All dogs could then be readily identified, and the register should be available so that owners and trainers who mistreat greyhounds can be found and prosecuted. There are no scientific barriers to prevent that in today's world.
	There are myths about keeping greyhounds as pets. Some people say it is cruel and that they cannot adapt. I can assure the House that the dogs make excellent pets. Their exercise requirements are not large. Annette Crosbie, president of the League Against Cruel Sports, owns four greyhounds, and she says that they are wonderfully placid, loving animals, and that once someone has one in their home, they will never want another kind of dog. Indeed, an ex-Member of this House, the late Peter Hardy, who represented Wentworth, spent most of his retirement looking after a retired greyhound, whose company he and his wife Margaret enjoyed for many happy years.
	Not all racing greyhounds can be found homes. For that reason, the industry should provide properly regulated greyhound sanctuaries to provide accommodation until a home can be found or so that the greyhounds live out their lives.
	The problems that I have outlined and the solutions I propose will all cost money, but animal welfare does not come free, whether it is in homes, on farms or at racing tracks. Some money has been found, but more will be needed. If we can find money to put into farmers' hands and pockets, surely we can do the same for the Royal Society for the Protection of Animals or the Retired Greyhound Trust.
	I hope that the Minister will agree that, in addition to the animal welfare Bill, the Gambling Bill, on the scrutiny Committee for which I have served, provides an ideal opportunity to address the question of a financial levy for the sport. After all, it already suggests provision for one in relation to gambling problems. Such an idea is not outrageous. I was privileged to be a member of the Home Affairs Committee some years ago when it examined the question of a greyhound levy, and it supported the idea, principally to address greyhound welfare. I am not suggesting that the bookmakers should bear the full brunt of welfare; clearly, owners and promoters must do more. The reality is, however, that the real money in the industry lies with the bookmakers. To insist, as some industry representatives do, that all responsibility for retirement provision lies with greyhound owners is callously to condemn too many dogs to institutional euthanasia.
	The Government have also introduced a Bill this Session enabling them to abolish the horse race betting levy. The situation in greyhound racing differs greatly. As the Minister knows, the Government feel that they can abolish the horse race levy because they are confident that bookmakers and the industry have come to financial agreements without the need for Government intervention.
	The House will recall that the Home Affairs Committee, on which I sat, produced a report in 1991 on the financing of greyhound racing. The report looked into the financing of the industry, but it also examined welfare issues. The Minister will know that the Committee recommended that more money should be provided for welfare concerns, and especially for re-homing. It also recommended that track owners and bookmakers be required to donate a part of their profits to the Retired Greyhound Trust. Sadly, 13 years on, that has not happened to any acceptable level.
	As I said earlier, the greyhound industry is an extremely lucrative business. For example, Walthamstow track in London has an annual turnover in excess of £8 million, and with many greyhound stadiums set to apply for casino status under the draft Gambling Bill, things can only get more profitable for them. What is more, bookmaker turnover on greyhound racing in each of the last five years was substantial: £1.5 billion in 1998, £1.2 billion in 1999, £1.6 billion in 2000, £1.8 billion in 2001 and £2.1 billion in 2002. Even on conservative estimates, it accounted for at least 23 per cent. of all off-course betting shop business.
	The industry is clearly profitable. Indeed, the chief executive of William Hill, David Harding, confirmed that in September 2003, when he said:
	"We are generating far more cash than we need."
	I have already said that I sincerely hope that more bookmakers pay the increased contributions. Indeed, my own experience in pursuing that objective was not a lone furrow. We should remember that the ex-Chancellor of the Exchequer, Norman Lamont—now Lord Lamont—threatened the bookmakers on several occasions for not paying up. Sadly, I say to the Minister, they did not even listen to the Chancellor at that time, even though he threatened them with increased taxes. What they did, instead, was to play for time and not pay up at all. That is not good enough. The welfare of thousands of greyhounds needs Government intervention—and the sooner the better. Greyhounds have been waiting too long.
	I admit that the position is slowly improving, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-East pointed out. However, the danger now is that the industry will point to the recent increase as the answer to all evils. As we have heard, the bookmakers have made it absolutely clear that the sum will not rise in the future—not in the foreseeable future, not in the future at all.
	I have high expectations of the Minister. I believe that the proposed animal welfare Bill must guarantee a number of things for racing greyhounds. I am sure that the Minister would see them as desirable. For instance, the Government must legislate for the mandatory provision of vets, preferably independently employed, at all greyhound tracks. They should state that all retired greyhounds must be re-homed, including those that are bred for racing but never make it to the track. Records must be kept to monitor greyhounds and particularly their treatment and the levels of care provided by owners and trainers. The proposed animal welfare Bill must also introduce minimum standards across the industry. It must make greyhounds safe from unnecessary death and suffering.
	Finally, I urge the Minister to recognise that he and his Department need to be actively engaged with the industry. To wait and see how or if Lord Lipsey is able to shift the industry in the direction of improved welfare, including retirement provision, is equivalent to abandoning the issue to those who for years have spent levy money on restaurants, toilets and prize money, while welfare has largely been ignored. If the Minister really wants to improve the standards of greyhound welfare, to bring an end to the unnecessary killing of healthy greyhounds and to see decent welfare at independent tracks, he must act. I say to my hon. Friend that dog lovers throughout the country are relying on him to deliver, and I urge him to act—and to act soon.

Ben Bradshaw: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) for securing this debate and for providing us with the opportunity to debate an issue that I know is of great concern to many right hon. and hon. Members—and, indeed, to Members in the other place. I pay tribute to the excellent work that my hon. Friend has done—not just for greyhounds, but across animal welfare. He has taken significant strides forward.
	It is not surprising that greyhound welfare is of such concern. Greyhounds are one of the oldest breeds of dog known to humans, and I fully agree that we have a strong duty to act where there is a need to protect their welfare. As my hon. Friend acknowledged in his speech, more money is now being made available to improve the welfare of greyhounds. On 6 April this year it was announced that an agreement had been reached between the Association of British Bookmakers and the British Greyhound Racing Board, which will see an incremental increase in the voluntary contribution paid by bookmakers to the sport from 0.4 per cent. of betting turnover to 0.6 per cent. in 2006. That could see payments to the British Greyhound Racing Fund—the body set up to distribute that levy—
	It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
	Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

Ben Bradshaw: Payments could rise from £8 million to some £16 million by 2006—

Alan Meale: The problem is that whether the figure is £8 million or £16 million, none of it is guaranteed to go to welfare. It is spent on prize money, stadiums and a range of other things. If history is any guide, very little of it will go on welfare issues.

Ben Bradshaw: Our hope and expectation is that a substantial proportion of that extra money will be used to pay for improvements in greyhound welfare. It is an extremely encouraging development that shows that the two industries are capable of working together better than they have in the past. I would like to take this opportunity—as did my hon. Friend—to thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and Tourism for helping to broker that agreement.
	My hon. Friend raised a concern also raised by many Members of both Houses about the welfare of retired greyhounds. Some of the new funding received from the bookmakers will go to help the Retired Greyhound Trust, which has been re-homing greyhounds for nearly 30 years. The organisation re-homed 2,608 greyhounds in 2003, compared with 2,030 in 2002. The trust re-homes dogs from the tracks registered by the National Greyhound Racing Club, and we all hope that increased funding will add extra impetus to its efforts. As my hon. Friend acknowledged, there are many other organisations that work tirelessly to re-home greyhounds, whether they be large canine charities such as the Dogs Trust and Battersea Dogs Home, or smaller organisations such as the greyhound rescue charities in Wales and the west of England.
	Even before the extra funding was agreed, the industry had demonstrated a growing commitment to retired greyhound welfare. That was illustrated by the steady increase in payments to the Retired Greyhound Trust, culminating in a payment last year from the British Greyhound Racing Fund of £600,000. It must also be remembered that there are many responsible greyhound owners who make provision for their animals during retirement, either paying for them to live in kennels or taking them into their own home as pets. I hope that the debate this evening will help to give those charities that do re-home retired greyhounds some well-deserved publicity. As my hon. Friend remarked, a retired greyhound is something of a friendly couch potato and therefore an ideal pet for a wide spectrum of dog lovers.

Dennis Turner: I thank my hon. Friend for his comments about the charities that support the care and welfare of greyhounds in retirement, to which we all subscribe. As chairman of the all-party group on greyhounds, I speak for all those Members of the House of Commons who are committed to working for the welfare of greyhounds. We have already had a successful meeting with the League Against Cruel Sports at which we talked about its programme. I assure the Minister that we are committed, together with the BGRB, to advancing the cause of greyhound welfare.

Ben Bradshaw: That intervention reflects the spirit of co-operation and constructive engagement between the two sides that will result, I hope, in further improvements in the months and years to come.
	Over the last decade, a number of welfare organisations have tirelessly campaigned for the racing industry to do more to raise standards. We are now seeing tangible evidence of that, including an increase in funding for welfare and the excellent work done by Clarissa Baldwin, the chairperson of the Greyhound Forum, in getting the industry and welfare groups to work together to produce the charter for the racing greyhound. The charter, which has now been in place for two years, represents a solid commitment to higher welfare standards. Building on the charter, there are now some exciting initiatives under way that should lead to further significant improvements.
	Briefly, I would like to mention the research that is going on in Poole to establish the best way to prepare and lay a track from the welfare point of view—something to which my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield referred in his speech. The initial cost to the industry for that research is £75,000.
	In addition, the British Greyhound Racing Fund has spent £600,000 on grants to tracks so that their kennelling facilities could be upgraded. That work is almost complete. It has enabled air management systems to be installed, which will, I hope, avoid incidents such as the death of the greyhound Football Focus at Catford in 2002 and others of the sort mentioned by my hon. Friend. All other track maintenance grants were refused until that work had been carried out. Those initiatives are in addition to the core funding that the fund provides to enable tracks to implement welfare provisions.
	My hon. Friend also reminded the House that the Government hope soon to publish their draft animal welfare Bill, which will impose a duty of care on all animal owners and will allow action to be taken before an animal is actually suffering. That provision will of course extend to the owners of racing greyhounds, and will lead to further improvements in greyhound welfare. The Bill will also allow the Government to introduce secondary legislation to regulate certain activities, and the welfare of racing greyhounds is an area where those powers could be used.
	Provisions are already in place on which the industry could build; for example, a vet must be in attendance at all NGRC race meetings and all track and trainer kennelling must meet a minimum standard. There is also a responsibility on the owner to ensure that any change of ownership, including at the time of retirement, is sent to the NGRC. The tracks are also inspected by local authorities under the Betting, Gaming and Lotteries Act 1963, and for public safety reasons.
	This is an extremely exciting time for the greyhound racing industry.

Alan Meale: Would it be possible for the Minister, via one of his friends in the local government section of the Government, to provide advice that local authorities dealing with planning permission for independent tracks should lay down a 106 planning condition that a registered vet is in attendance at all race meetings?

Ben Bradshaw: That is a very interesting suggestion. Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to give it some consideration and to discuss with my officials whether it would be practicable; it certainly sounds desirable.
	With the new leadership to which my hon. Friend referred and the renewed vision in that leadership, there is the possibility of a sea change in attitudes over the next two or three years.
	As my hon. Friend also acknowledged, Members are aware that the draft Gambling Bill has recently undergone pre-legislative scrutiny. The Bill is primarily concerned with ensuring that the gambling industry is regulated in the most appropriate form, but it is also concerned with safeguarding the integrity of the product. That means that measures with an impact on welfare may appear in the Bill.
	I realise, however, as my hon. Friend pointed out, that 20 tracks in Great Britain fall outside the auspices of the NGRC. They are not entitled to any of the funding from the British Greyhound Racing Fund, as off-course bookmakers do not operate at them. I must stress that all greyhounds will enjoy protection under the proposed animal welfare Bill, and that will include those that run at independent tracks, so those tracks will need to start thinking extremely carefully about welfare improvements. In the future they cannot expect to operate at a lower welfare threshold than other tracks.
	In July 2001, an Adjournment debate on greyhound welfare was held in another place. During that debate, my colleague Lord Whitty said that the racing industry had to get its house in order. There are now very clear signs that we are starting to see that reordering, but I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield that we must not be complacent and that much remains to be done.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Ten o'clock.